REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. xxxx

[Murder]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus-

xxxxxx
Accused,

xxxxx,
Accused-Appellants.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

I. Assignment of Errors ……………………….………………… 3-4

II. Statement of the Case ………………..……………………. 4-6
III. Statement of the Facts …………………………………. 6-12
Evidence for the Prosecution …………………………. 6-9
Evidence for the Defense ……………………….……… 9-12
IV. Arguments …..……………………………………………………. 12-27
V. Prayer ……………………………………………………………………. 28
VI. Explanation ……………….……………………………………….. 29

AUTHORITIES/LAW CITED

 People v. Erni, G.R. No. 114186, July 12, 1995

 People v. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, July 30, 2002
 People v. Rubio and Amaro, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009
 Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 20, 2017; citing
People v. Gaborne, G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016
 People v. Narvaez, G.R. No. 140759, January 24, 2002; citing
People v. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996) and People v. Alagon,
325 SCRA 297 (2000)
 People v. Monda, Jr. and Balbalosa, G.R. Nos. 105000-01,
November 22, 1993
 People v. Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011
 People v. Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000
 People v. Comesario, G.R. No. 127811, April 29, 1999
 People v. Pangan, G.R. No. 193837, September 21, 2016
 Quidet v. People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010
 People v. Ballesta, G.R. No. 181632, September 25, 2008
 People v. Patano, G.R. No. 129306, March 14, 2003
 People v. Noroña, G.R. No. 132192, March 31, 2000
 People v. Ragon, et al., G.R. No, 100593, November 18, 1997
 Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court

APPENDIX “A” Joint Decision

APPENDIX “B” Order

Page | 2
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus - CA-G.R. CR-HC NO.

XXXX,

Accused,

XXXXX,
Accused-Appellants.
x---------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT XXX GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, DESPITE THE
DOUBTFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH HIS IDENTIFICATION WAS
BASED UPON.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT YYY GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE
CONSPIRED WITH THE PERSONS WHO
KILLED _____.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Accused XXX and YYY, ZZZZ, and John Doe were

charged for two (2) counts of Murder before the Regional

Page | 3
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

Trial Court of ______, Branch ___. The accusatory portions

of the Informations are hereunder quoted as follows:

Criminal Case No.

“That on or about xxxx

With the aggravating circumstances that the

crime was committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”1

Criminal Case No.

“That on or about xxxx

With the aggravating circumstance that the

crime was committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”2

2. On arraignment, all of the accused pleaded NOT

GUILTY of the crimes charged. During preliminary
conference, both parties stipulated on the identities of
accused XXX, YYY, and ZZZ.3 Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.

3. On April 20, 2018, the trial court rendered a Joint

Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premised considered,

judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

In Crim. Case No. ____, on ground of

insufficiency of evidence, all the accused in this
case are hereby acquitted of the crime of Murder
for the death of ____.

In Crim. Case No. ____, the Court finds

accused XXX, YYY, and ZZZ GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified
1
As cited in the RTC Joint Decision, pp. 1-2, a duplicate original copy of which is
hereto attached as Appendix “A”
2
Ibid. p. 2
3
Joint Pre-Trial Order, pp. 1-2

Page | 4
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

by the aggravating circumstance of treachery and

are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
______ the sum of P2,000,000.00 as moral
damages and P1,366,208,208.34 as actual
damages, to be paid solidarily by all the said
accused.

SO ORDERED.”4

4. On May 4, 2018, accused XXX and YYY filed a Motion

for Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. ____, which the
trial court denied in an Order dated June 25, 2018.5

5. Hence, accused XXX and YYY interposed the present

appeal for Criminal Case No.______.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION:

5. In the morning of xxxx6

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE:

6. Accused XXX and YYY vehemently denied the

accusation against them.

6.1. xxxx

ARGUMENTS

In support of the First Assigned Error:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT XXX GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, DESPITE THE
DOUBTFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH HIS IDENTIFICATION WAS
BASED UPON.
4
Ibid. pp. 21-22
5
A certified true copy of which is hereto attached as Appendix “B”
6
See: RTC Joint Decision, p. 7, Appendix “A” hereof

Page | 5
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

7. In finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of Murder,

the trial court heavily relied on a series of circumstances,
which allegedly linked him to the killing of ________, by
ruling:

“Incidentally, nobody saw the faces of

the three gunmen who went to the session
hall of the _________ on the second floor of
the _______ because they were wearing
bonnet or mask. The only thing the prosecution’s
witnesses could describe is their outfit and their
heights. However, there are chain of events
which the Court may rely as constituting
circumstantial evidence to support its
conclusion that the herein accused ZZZ, XXX
and YYY conspired to commit the crime
charged in Crim. Case No., to wit:

1. As alluded to above, the prosecution

clearly established that three (3) armed men with
cover on their faces entered the _____ on ___,
2015 and one of them shot to death _____

2. After the killing of ____, one of the

prosecution’s witnesses _____ saw the three (3)
armed men with bonnet or mask in their faces
coming from the municipal hall crossing the road,
proceeded to the parked Mitsubishi Adventure in
the ____ residence and they boarded the said
vehicle (TSN, August 17, 2015, pp. 14-17)

3. That the driver of said red Mitsubishi

Adventure at that time, June 19, 2015, is accused
ZZZ as identified by witnesses _____ and PNP
Officer ____.

4. That Police Officer _____

together with his men conducted a hot
pursuit, chasing the said red Mitsubishi
Adventure proceeding to the direction of San
Agustin, Isabela and in the process, two (2)
occupants of the said red Mitsubishi
Adventure alighted and exchanged fire with
the team of Police Officer _____. One of the
men who alighted from the said vehicle was
captured in )______ in the person of
accused ZZZ and was arrested.

Page | 6
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

5. Police ______ of ______, after

being informed of the killing of ________
and the getaway car, a red Mitsubishi
Adventure, established a checkpoint in
Barangay ______ and upon arrival of the
said red Mitsubishi Adventure at the said
checkpoint, it was flagged down, searched
the said vehicle and they found maong pants
and bonnet and thereafter arrested the
driver who introduced himself as ZZZ and his
companion, accused XXX.

6. And finally, after the arrest of ZZZ

and XXX, they were brought to the Crime
Laboratory Office for paraffin test and the
result is that accused XXX is positive for the
presence of gunpowder nitrates on his left
hand (TSN, June 16, 2016, p. 16).”7
[Emphases supplied]

xxx xxx xxx

“In other words, connecting each event,

from the time ____ was shot to death up to the
time the killers walked towards the red Mitsubishi
Adventure and actually boarded it and up to the
time said vehicle was chased by the police
authority of ______ and had a brief encounter with
two of them, then the capture of accused YYY and
also the arrest of accused ZZZ and XXX, the
picture becomes clearer to show a design or a plan
of the said group to kill ____. The motive was not
established by the prosecution but such
circumstances would readily show an unbroken
chain which lead to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to them to the exclusion of
all others as the perpetrators. Indeed, the chain of
events constituting circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction because there are more
than one circumstances, the facts from which the
inference are (sic) derived are proven and the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”8

8. Accused-appellant XXX respectfully begs to disagree.

7
RTC Joint Decision, pp. 16-17, Appendix “A” hereof
8
Ibid. p. 17

Page | 7
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

9. While “[c]ircumstantial evidence could, and has not

infrequently been held to be adequate to support a
conviction[, s]ince, however, this kind of evidence can in no
way come close to direct evidence in its integrity value,
additional safeguards are provided by the rules to help
ensure the probity of such circumstantial evidence.” 9 In
particular, the additional safeguards pertain to Section 4,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which states that for
circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the following
must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b)
the facts from which the inferences are derived have been
proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 10

9.1. In the evaluation of the probative value of the

series of circumstances, it must be tested against four (4)
necessary guidelines, i.e.: “(a) it should be acted upon with
caution; (b) all essential facts must be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt; (c) the facts must exclude every other
theory but that of guilt of the accused; and (d) the facts
must establish with certainty the guilt of the accused as to
convince beyond reasonable doubt that he was the
perpetrator of the [crime].”11

10. In this instance, the above requirements were not

met, when the inferences leading to the supposed
identification of accused-appellant XXX were derived from
inconclusive evidence.

11. In particular, as the trial court even recognized,

nobody saw the faces of the three gunmen who killed
____.12 Notably, the shooting incident at ____. happened at
around 10:30 o’clock in the morning of ____, 2015. 13 In the
presentation of the prosecution, it shows that accused-
appellant XXX was arrested in the evening of _____, 2015 in
_____.14

11.1. According to PO2 _____, accused-appellant XXX

was arrested pursuant to a tipped information that a
9
People v. Erni, G.R. No. 114186, July 12, 1995
10
People v. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, July 30, 2002
11
People v. Rubio and Amaro, G.R. No. 179748, October 2, 2009 [Underscoring and
emphasis omitted]
12
RTC Joint Decision, p. 16, Appendix “A” hereof
13
TSN, September 30, 201, pp. 8, 17, and 29-35
14
TSN, November 22, 2017, pp. 4-9;

Page | 8
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

suspicious person who was involved in an encounter in

_____ was in ______.15 However, this informant who could
have linked XXX to the killing of _____ was never presented
by the prosecution.

11.2. Instead, the trial court relied on the following:

(a) XXX having been found positive for gunpowder nitrates
on his left hand;16 and (b) him having been identified as one
of the persons who jumped at the red Adventure vehicle
who engaged in a gunfight at the team of P/Insp. _______.17

The Chemistry Report, which found

accused-appellant XXX positive for
gunpowder nitrates, is inconclusive to tie
him in the killing of ______.

12. With respect to accused-appellant XXX allegedly

having been found positive for gunpowder nitrates, P/CInsp.
___ (the forensic chemist who prepared the chemistry
report18) testified that he merely examined the paraffin casts
that were taken from accused-appellants YYY and ZZZ. 19 As
to how the casts were taken, P/CInsp. ____ admitted that
he only took part after the paraffin casts were taken from
them.20 Thus, question abounds on whether the paraffin
casts that allegedly posted positive for gunpowder nitrates
did actually came from the hands of accused-appellants XXX
and YYYY.

13. Moreover, the findings of P/CInsp. _____ are also

inconclusive, when he admitted that there is a possibility
that the nitrates that was found in the paraffin cast could
have been due to chemical reaction of soil, fertilizer, or
garbage when introduced to heat.21 Thus, although P/CInsp.
_____ insisted that the nitrates found in the paraffin casts
are gunpowder residue,22 nonetheless, he failed to
15
Ibid
16
Supra. Note 36 (Item No. 6)
17
Ibid (Item No. 4)
In re: RTC Order, p. 1-2, Appendix “B” hereof, which reads as follow:
“xxxxxx
18
Chemistry Report, Exhibit “PP” for the prosecution
19
TSN, June 16, 2016, p. 11-17
20
Ibid. pp. 15-16
21
Ibid. p. 19:
(Cross-Examination)
“xxxx”
22
Ibid. p. 22 [Re-cross examination]

Page | 9
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

differentiate it from the chemical components of nitrates

that are found in soil, fertilizer, and garbage. Thus, there is
an equal possibility that the nitrates found in the paraffin
casts came from sources other than gunpowder.

13.1. Coincidentally, accused-appellant _____ is a

farmer.23 Thus, if indeed one of the paraffin casts that was
examined by P/CInsp. _____ was indeed taken from XXX’s
hands, the latter’s profession include handling of soil and
fertilizer, which would naturally react to the heat of the
paraffin cast (liquid form) that would form the nitrates as
found during the laboratory examination.

13.2. The indefiniteness of P/CInsp. ___’s testimony

supports what the Supreme Court had longed declared that
paraffin test is inconclusive evidence due to concurrence of
several experts of it being extremely unreliable in
determining whether the source of the nitrates was from a
discharge of a firearm.24

14. As such, accused-appellant XXX having been

allegedly found positive for nitrates on his hands is
indecisive to tie him in the killing of ______.

P/Insp. ______ supposed positive

identification of accused-appellant
XXX is betrayed by the factual
circumstances of the case.

15. With regard to the supposed identification of XXX

as one of the persons who jumped from the red Adventure
vehicle and engaged a gunfight at P/Insp. ____’s team, the
trial court based it on P/Insp. ____’s testimony, 25 i.e.:.
“xxxx”26

15.1.1. When pressed for details during cross-

examination, P/Insp. _____ narrated the following:

23
TSN, October 24, 2017, p. 25
24
Peralta v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 20, 2017; citing People v. Gaborne,
G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016
25
RTC Joint Decision, pp. 13-15, Appendix “A”
26
Ibid. p. 25

Page | 10
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

“XXXXX”27 [Emphases and underscoring

suppled]

16. However, the scenario painted by P/Insp. ____ on

how he was able to identify accused-appellant XXX leaves
nothing that could credibly support his supposed positive
identification.

17. As declared above, the two (2) men who jumped

from the red Adventure vehicle hid at the forested area
beside the road, and immediately engaged in a gunfight with
P/Insp. ______ team. During the said gunfight, the two (2)
armed men and the police officers were at about one
hundred fifty (150) meters apart.

17.1. Relevant thereto, the Supreme Court in People v.

Narvaez28 used the distance in gauging the credibility of the
identification of an accused by a witness, by ruling:

“xxx. It was held that the distance of 40 to

50 meters from the scene of the crime,
taken by itself, may lead the court to
entertain doubt on the accuracy of what a
witness had observed. Here, such doubt is
magnified by the fact that the distance is about 70
to 150 meters with the surroundings quite
dark.”29 [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

17.2. Granting that unlike in Narvaez, the encounter in

this instance happened at daytime, nonetheless, if the
Supreme Court in the same case recognized that a distance
of forty (40) to fifty (50) meters, by itself, entertain
doubt on the accuracy of the identification of a
witness, then what more if the distance is one hundred fifty
(150) meters. Notably, one hundred fifty (150) meter
distance is twenty (20) meters short from the main gate of
this Honorable Court’s building to Robinsons Ermita. 30
27
Ibid. pp. 44-45
28
G.R. No. 140759, January 24, 2002
29
Ibid. Citing: People v. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 (1996) and People v. Alagon, 325
SCRA 297 (2000)
30
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Court+of+Appeals,+Abenida+Maria+Orosa,
+Ermita,+Manila,+1000+Metro+Manila/Robinsons+Place+Manila,
+Pedro+Gil+Street,+Ermita,+Manila,+Metro+Manila/
@14.5777644,120.9812924,17z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!
1s0x3397ca2619e7126b:0x1917dbb793c22803!2m2!1d120.9828407!
2d14.5798203!1m5!1m1!1s0x3397ca291d37a877:0x521822decfe229a6!2m2!
1d120.9828028!2d14.576449 – Google Map (Last visited on ____, 2019)

Page | 11
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

17.3. Equally, in People v. Monda, Jr. and Balbalosa,31

the Supreme Court rejected the supposed positive
identification made by a witness at even a shorter distance
of thirty (30) meters, based on the following considerations:

“xxx. A punctilious review of his

testimony reveals, however, that assuming
arguendo that two of the ambushers were
indeed facing him, they were then firing
at him from a distance of thirty
meters. As he was busy evading their
shots and seeking cover therefrom, he
could not have had the opportunity to
view and perceive his attackers with
exactitude, free from any error or
inaccuracy, more so at a distance of
thirty meters. xxx" [Emphasis supplied]

17.4. Thus, the degree of attention P/Insp. _____ while

evading the gunshots that were being fired at them, coupled
with excitement, stress, and even fear brought about by the
said incident, negate any possibility for him to maintain such
degree of concentration to be able to recognize one of the
armed men as accused-appellant XXX. More so, since it was
the first time P/Insp. ____ met the armed men, who at that
time, were hiding at the forested area one hundred fifty
(150) meters away from him, then this creates reasonable
degree that he could have mistaken him as accused-
appellant XXX.32

18. From the foregoing, both the paraffin test and the
supposed identification made by P/Insp. ____ are
inconclusive to exclude any other possibility that some other
person, and not accused-appellant XXX, could have
committed the crime charged. Concomitantly, when the
correct identification of the author of a crime should be the
primal concern of criminal prosecution, 33 the circumstances
relied upon by the trial court leading to the supposed
identification of accused-appellant XXX cannot stand beyond
reasonable doubt that he is actually one of the persons who
killed _____ and not someone else.
31
G.R. Nos. 105000-01, November 22, 1993
32
Ibid. See also: People v. Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011
33
People v. Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000

Page | 12
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

In support of the Second Assigned Error:

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT YYYY GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER, DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE
CONSPIRED WITH THE PERSONS WHO
KILLED _____.

19. In finding accused-appellant YYY guilty for Murder,

the trial court also based it on circumstantial evidence, 34
which can be summarized as follows:

a. One of the three (3) armed men who went

inside the ____ killed ____;35

b. Minutes after the shooting incident, the three

(3) armed men were seen by ____ outside the
municipal hall and boarded a red Adventure
vehicle;36

c. G_____ saw that the red Adventure vehicle,

which the three (3) men boarded, was being
driven by co-accused-appellant ZZZ;37
d. When the red Adventure vehicle was caught at
a police checkpoint in ____, the police officers
apprehended its driver, co-accused-appellant
ZZZ, and the latter’s companion seated at the
front passenger side, herein accused-appellant
YYYY;38 and

e. Accused-appellant YYY posted positive for

gunpowder nitrates.39

20. Foremost, in the same way that the paraffin test

cannot support accused-appellant XXX guilt, 40 the paraffin
34
Supra. Note 36
35
Ibid. (Item No. 1)
36
Ibid. (Item No. 2)
37
Ibid. (Item No. 3)
38
Ibid. (Item No. 5)
39
Ibid. (Item No. 6)
40
Paragraphs 12-14 of this Brief for the Accused-Appellants

Page | 13
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

test that was conducted by P/CInsp. _____ on accused-

appellant YYYY is also inconclusive to draw an inference that
he participated in the killing of _____.

21. Thus, with the exclusion of the paraffin test, the

conclusion of guilt of accused-appellant YYY could be further
summarized as follows: (a) he is one of the three (3) armed
men who killed ______;41 and (b) he was arrested inside a
vehicle that was identified to have been used as the getaway
vehicle of the assailants.

22. However, to reiterate, even the trial court

acknowledged that none of the witnesses presented by the
prosecution, “saw the faces of the three gunmen who went
to the session hall of the xxxxxx.”42

23. Moreover, a careful review of the records of the

case, the description of these armed men did not coincide
with accused-appellant YYY.

23.1. According to ____, the only witness presented by

the prosecution who saw the exact moment _____was
shot,43 he described the three armed men as follows:

“Q: Can you please describe how they look?

A: The first one that I saw was actually
wearing a camouflage jacket and then he
has a bonnet, a black bonnet, and there was
like a scarf from above the head and then he
has this mask like a maskara, or Ati-Atihan
mask just around the face so I see holes
from the eyes. You can eventually see the holes
on the eyes. So it took them more time to enter
the premises of the session hall so I was able to
completely see them.

Q: How about the other two, how did they

look or appear?
A: Yes. The other one actually is very
visible in his camouflage attire. So he has a
camouflage jacket and then he is wearing
black bonnet and dark sunglass. The other
one is also wearing a black bonnet and then
41
In re: RTC Joint Decision, p. 18, Appendix “A” hereof:
“xxxx
42
Ibid. p. 16
43
TSN, September 30, 2015, pp. 29-35

Page | 14
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

a dark sunglass and a handkerchief tied

around his mouth, and then he is wearing a
dark, somewhat a dark blue shirt and a dark
maong pants.”44 [Emphasis, underscoring and
Italicization supplied]

23.2. The above coincide with the description given by

______, who claimed that when he was about to go to the
municipal hall after receiving a report that his ______ was
shot,45 he saw three (3) armed men crossing the street from
the municipal hall, which he described as follows:

“xxxx46

23.4. Concisely, by weaving the testimony of ___, ___,

and _____, on board the getaway vehicle were ZZZ, who
was driving the vehicle, and three (3) armed men, two in
camouflage jacket and combat shoes, and the other one in a
dark blue shirt.

24. However, when accused-appellant YYY was

arrested, he was wearing a white t-shirt, short pants, and
slippers,47 which is neither a blue t-shirt nor a camouflage
jacket in combat shoes, which ___, ___, and ____ used in
describing the three (3) armed men.48

25. Based on the foregoing, it therefore appears that

the conviction of accused-appellant YYY rested only
on him being inside the getaway vehicle that was
identified to have been boarded by the armed men
who killed _____. Yet, in itself, it only constitutes a single
circumstance, which cannot form an unbroken link for a fair
a reasonable minded person to conclude that he participated
in the death of _____.49 To emphasize, for circumstantial
evidence to sustain conviction, there must be more than one
circumstance,50 which the evidence of the prosecution failed
to competently provide.

44
TSN, November 22, 2017, pp. 24-25
45
TSN, August 17, 2015\, p. 13
46
Ibid. p. 36
47
Photograph of accused-appellant YYY following his arrest, Exhibit “S” for the
prosecution
48
Supra. Notes 74, 76, and 77
49
People v. Comesario, G.R. No. 127811, April 29, 1999
50
People v. Pangan, G.R. No. 193837, September 21, 2016

Page | 15
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

26. Neither the presence of accused-appellant YYY

inside the getaway vehicle could link him to the death of YYY
by applying the principle of conspiracy.

27. In Quidet v. People,51 the Supreme Court declared

that, “[c]onspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity
of action and purpose. xxx" This unity of action or purpose,
as the Supreme Court furthered in the same case, “can be
inferred from and established by the acts of the accused
themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interests.” 52

27.1. Thus, in a related case of People v. Ballesta,53

since conspiracy is inferred from the acts of the accused, “to
hold [him/her] liable as co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he[/she] must be shown to have performed an overt act in
pursuance or in furtherance of conspiracy.”
27.2. The kind of overt act that could support the
existence of conspiracy is either an “active participation in
the actual commission of the crime itself or moral assistance
to co-conspirators by exerting moral ascendancy over them
by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.” 54

28. In this instance, the presence of accused-appellant

YYY inside the alleged getaway car cannot serve as basis
that he conspired with ZZZ, who is also being charged for
the death of _____. “Conspiracy transcends
55
companionship”; thus, absent of proof that accused-
appellant YYY actively participated or gave moral assistance
to the persons who killed ______,56 then he could not
therefore be said to have conspired in the commission of the
said crime.

28.1. While inference can be made that accused-

appellant YYYY might have some knowledge on the plan to
kill ____, if the red Mitsubishi vehicle he was found on board
is indeed the getaway vehicle used by the armed men,
nonetheless, knowledge or acquiescence is not sufficient to
51
G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010
52
Ibid
53
G.R. No. 181632, September 25, 2008
54
Ibid
55
People v. Patano, G.R. No. 129306, March 14, 2003
56
Ibid

Page | 16
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

hold a person liable as conspirator.57 At most, this only

creates a mere suspicion that cannot prove conspiracy.58

29. In fine, since “conviction must rest on the strength

of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness
of that of the defense,” 59 the accused-appellants XXX and
YYY must therefore be acquitted of Murder on account of the
insufficiency and inconclusiveness of the circumstantial
evidence upon which the identification of accused-appellant
XXX stands and the establishment of conspiracy for accused-
appellant YYY.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the Joint
Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court of ____,
Branch ___, dated ____ and ____, respectively be
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one be rendered
ACQUITTING the accused-appellants XXX and YYY of the
crime of Murder.

Quezon City for Manila,

_____.

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
of the 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Brief for the Accused-Appellants is being

served by registered mail, personal service not being
practicable due to the limited number of messengers in the
undersigned’s office.

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

57
Supra. Note 84
58
People v. Noroña, G.R. No. 132192, March 31, 2000
59
People v. Ragon, et al., G.R. No, 100593, November 18, 1997

Page | 17
BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
People of the Philippines v. XXXX
CA-G.R. CR HC No. XXXX
FOR: Murder

134 Amorsolo Street Reg. Receipt No. _______

1229 Legazpi Village, Makati City Date: ________________

Page | 18