Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

EIGHTH (8th) DIVISION

****

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR No. 46394

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
-versus- SORONGON, E.D.,
Chairperson,
GARREN MAGBANUA y ROXAS, R.R.G., and
SALAZAR, RAMOS, JR., E.S., JJ
Accused-Appellant,
Promulgated: FEB 28 2023

__________________________
x--------------------------------------------- --------------x
DECISION
SORONGON, E.D., J. :

Before Us is an Appeal from the July 13, 2021 Decision1 of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City, Branch 153, in Criminal Case
No. 3664, finding Garren Magbanua y Salazar (accused-appellant) guilty of
the crime of Homicide.
The Facts
Accused appellant and the victim, Genmark Magbanua (Genmark) are
brothers. They both lived in the house of their other brother, Jeremy
Magbanua (Jeremy) and his wife, Roselle Magbanua (Roselle), and the
couple’s son, Genrick Magbanua (Genrick) in Taguig City.2

The prosecution alleged that accused-appellant and Genmark are

constantly quarreling with each other at home. Jeremy had to constantly
remind them to stop fighting otherwise he would send accused-appellant

1 Rollo, pp. 14-31. Penned by Mariam G. Bien.

2 Id. at 95.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 2
x-----------------------------------x

back to Tugegarao. On March 4, 2020, Jeremy left the house at around 5:30
a.m. to go to work. At 9:00 a.m., Roselle also left to go to work. Their son
Genrick left for school at 11:30 a.m., leaving accused-appellant and
Genmark alone in the house. At 2:00 p.m., a mason repairing the
neighboring house, Alberto Dela Cruz (Alberto), saw accused-appellant
leaving Jeremy’s house in a hurry. He did not see anyone else leaving or
entering the house after that. At 8:00 p.m., Genrick returned home from
school and saw the bloodied lifeless body of his uncle Genmark on the bed. 3
After Genrick informed his mother what happened, they reported it to the
authorities.

On March 5, 2020, the Taguig City police received information that

accused-appellant was at the Adventist University in Silang, Cavite, which
led to his arrest. Meanwhile, an autopsy was conducted on the victim
Genmark’s body by P/Lt. Col. Narai Anna Lissa Dela Cruz (P/Lt/ Col. Dela
Cruz) of the PNP Southern Police District Crime Laboratory, who issued a
Medico-Legal Report stating that Genmark sustained nineteen (19) stab
wounds, two (2) incise wounds and a contusion.4

Thus, an Information was filed against accused-appellant charging

him with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the
accusation reads:

“That on or about the 4th day of March 2020, in the City of

Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did, then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously killed one GENMARK MAGBANUA y
SALAZAR, by assaulting and stabbing him multiple times with a bladed
weapon, which directly cause[d] his death, with the said killing having
been attended with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident
premeditation, which qualify such killing to Murder, as the above-named
accused performed the crime which deprived Genmark Magbanua y
[Salazar] to make any defense, much to latter’s (sic) damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”5

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He denied being

at the house at the time Genmark was killed. He alleged that on March 4,
2020, at around 11:30 a.m., he left the house to go to the Adventist
University, Silang, Cavite for mid-week service because he was studying

3 Id. at 95-96.
4 Id. at 96.
5 Records, p. 2.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 3
x-----------------------------------x

dentistry there. He stayed there until the next day. At around 8:30 a.m. on
March 5, 2020, four (4) policemen arrived at the university and arrested him,
then brought him to Imperial Police Station 1 in Silang, Cavite.6

Ruling of the RTC

In the assailed Decision,7 the RTC held that the totality of

circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed the crime charged,
which accused-appellant's defense of denial could not overcome. However,
the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish that evident premeditation or
treachery attended the killing, hence accused-appellant could only be
convicted of homicide. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this court hereby finds

accused Garren Magbanua y Salazar GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Homicide, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Seven (7) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years, Eight (8) months, and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with preventive imprisonment
credited in his favor.

Accused is further ordered to pay the following amounts to the

heirs of the deceased Genmark Magbanua, to wit: a) Php75,000.00 as
indemnity ex delicto; (b) Php25,000.00 as temperate damages; and c)
Php50,000.00 by way of moral damages.

All damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.

City of Taguig, 13 July 2021.

Feeling aggrieved, accused-appellant filed this Appeal8 raising the

following issues:

I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF HOMICIDE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF
THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED;
and

6 Id. at 49.
7 See Note 1.
8 Rollo, pp. 43-60.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 4
x-----------------------------------x

II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF HOMICIDE ON THE BASIS OF
INSUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Our Ruling
The primordial issue in this case is a factual one – whether the
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are sufficient to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant killed Genmark. On this
score, We must note that it is uncontested that the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.

After a judicious review of the circumstantial evidence presented by

the prosecution, We cannot help but notice that there are large gaps in the
witnesses’ accounts wherein any other person could have killed Genmark,
and that the totality of evidence cannot prove with moral certainty that
accused-appellant committed the crime.

Indeed, presentation of direct evidence is not the only way to prove

the crime of Homicide. It is so basic a principle that circumstantial evidence
may be resorted to when direct evidence cannot be obtained. Section 4, Rule
133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the
requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz.:

SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. —

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

True, there is certainly more than one circumstance in this case – all of
which are sourced from the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses: (1)
Genrick Magbanua; (2); Roselle Magbanua and (3) Alberto Dela Cruz.
However, We shall discuss below how the combination of these witnesses’
accounts could not produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimony of Genrick, which was stipulated upon by the parties,

simply proves that he left the house at 11 o’clock in the morning on March
4, 2020 and returned home at 8 o’clock in the evening of even date and saw
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 5
x-----------------------------------x

Genmark’s lifeless body on the bed. We note that the parties did not
stipulate whether Genrick saw accused-appellant or Genmark were still at
the house when he left at 11:00 a.m., nor was there a stipulation that he saw
the said siblings fighting before he left.9

Meanwhile, the testimony of Roselle was presented to prove two

pieces of circumstantial evidence (1) that Genrick, accused-appellant and
Genmark were the only people remaining at the house when she left at 9
o’clock in the morning on March 4, 2020; and (2) that accused-appellant and
Genmark constantly quarreled with one another. On the latter point, Roselle
attested:10

Q: [Prosecutor Maog] Bago mangyari ang krimen na ito, may

napansin ka bang hindi pagkakaunawaan doon sa dalawang magkapatid?
A: [Roselle] Opo, Sir. Kinausap na po ‘yang dalawa ng asawa ko
[Jeremy] na ‘wag na silang mag-away kasi papauwiin nila si Garren
[accused-appellant] sa Tugegarao kung hindi sila magkakasundo, Sir.

Q: May idea ka ba kung tungkol saan ang pinag-aawayan nila?

A: Sigawan lang po, sinabihan lang po na palamunin, wala siyang
kwentang tao, at puro problema binibigay, Sir.

Q: Sino ang sinabihan na palamunin?

A: Si Garren po ang sinabihan ni Genmark, Sir.

In evaluating Roselle’s testimony, We find three (3) pivotal

deficiencies:

(1) She did not testify whether accused-appellant and

Genmark were fighting in the morning of March 4, 2020,
nor did she specify when their arguments took place. In
fact, her testimony implies that the disagreement between
accused-appellant and Genmark stopped when Jeremy
talked to them;

9 TSN, Genrick Magbanua (stipulation), December 16, 2020, p. 22. The parties stipulated the
following:

1. That he is a resident of Blk. 4 Lot 12 Pitogo Residence Bambang ni Peles St., Brgy. Calzada-
Tipas, Taguig City, the place where the subject incident occured;
2. That on March 4, 2020, he was a student attending Taguig Integrated School;
3. That on March 4, 2020, he went to school at around 11 in the morning and he returned home at
8 in the evening;
4. That he was the one who discovered the remains of Genmark Magbanua y Salazar; and
5. That he has no personal knowledge on (sic) the facts and circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator.
10 TSN, Roselle Magbanua, December 16, 2020, pp. 17-18.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 6
x-----------------------------------x

(2) She did not mention whether there were past incidents of
violence between the two. She even characterized their
quarrel as “sigawan lang,” indicating that the arguments
between accused-appellant and Genmark never led to a
violent confrontation.

(3) She did not state whether accused-appellant made any

threats to hurt or kill Genmark during any of their past
arguments.

Clearly, the lack of these important facts dampens the impact of

Roselle’s testimony in establishing accused-appellant’s guilt thru
circumstantial evidence.

The third and most important witness, Alberto, sought to establish (1)
that while making repairs at a nearby house, he saw accused-appellant
hurriedly leaving Jeremy’s house at 2 o’clock in the afternoon on March 4,
2020; and (2) that he did not see anyone else leaving or entering the house
that day from that time until he finished his work at 5 o’clock in the
afternoon.

However, a review of Alberto’s testimony readily reveals that he

could not have known whether there was any other person who entered or
left Jeremy’s house on the day of the incident, and even admitted that he did
not even know exactly who were inside the house at that time. On cross-
examination, Alberto attested:11

Q: [Atty. Ramos] Mr. Witness, sabi mo gumagawa ka sa bahay na

katabi ng bahay kung saan nangyari ang insidente?
A: [Alberto] Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Noong 8 a.m. ba ay nandoon ka na sa bahay na ginagawa niyo?

A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Mula 8 a.m., saang parte ng bahay kayo gumagawa?

A: Sa terrace po, Ma’am

Q: Mula anong oras hanggang anong oras po kayo gumagawa (sic)?

A: Hanggang 5 p.m., Ma’am.

Q: Mula 8 a.m. hanggang 5 p.m., ikaw ba ay nandoon lang sa

terrace?
A: May breaktime po kaming 15 minutes tuwing 10 a.m., Ma’am.

11 TSN, Alberto Dela Cruz, December 16, 2020, pp. 8-13.

CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 7
x-----------------------------------x

Q: Ibig sabihin, hindi ka umaalis doon sa terrace?

A: Hindi po kami umaalis dahil iyon po ang priority namin, Ma’am.

xxxx

Q: Sabi mo, noong araw na iyon ay nakita mong lumabas ang isang
lalak[e]?
A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Kilala mo lang siya na kapatid ng biktima [Genmark]?

A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Pero hindi mo alam ang pangalan niya?

A: Hindi po.

Q: Mga anong oras mo nga siya nakita?

A: Alas dos ng hapon (2 p.m.) po, Ma’am.

Q: Anong araw iyon?

A: ‘Di ko lang matandaan, Ma’am, medyo matagal na po e.

Q: At nang nakita mo ang kapatid ng biktima, ano nga ang suot niya
noong araw na iyon?
A: Nakaitim na pantalong maong, nakadilaw na damit, nakatali ng
puting towel ang buhok, at may bitbit na sako, Ma’am.

Q: Nang makita mo ang kapatid ng biktima, ano nga ulit ang

ginagawa niya?
A: Nagmamadali palabas ng gate, Ma’am.

Q: Bukod sa nagmamadali, may iba pa ba siyang ginagawa?

A: Wala na po, hindi na siya bumalik.

Q: At sabi mo, wala ka nang ibang napansin na lumabas noong araw

na iyon kundi siya lang?
A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Sabi mo dito sa iyong sinumpaang salaysay ay ang alam mo,

dalawa lang sila ng kapatid niya sa loob ng bahay, kasi nasa
school ang anak ng mag-asawa habang nasa trabaho naman din
ang mag-asawa. Nakita mo ba silang umalis, Mr. Witness?
A: Hindi po, Ma’am.

Q: Nakita mo ba silang lumabas ng bahay noong araw na iyon?

A: Ang mag-asawa po, hindi ko nakita. Pero iyong anak, bago
umalis, nakita ko kasi papasok siya, Ma’am.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 8
x-----------------------------------x

Q: Sabi mo kanina na wala ka nang ibang napansin na lumabas

kundi ang kapatid ng biktima. Ngayon, sinasabi mo rin na nakita
mo ring umalis ang anak?
A: Pumasok po siya sa school noong umaga, Ma’am.

Q: Mga anong oras?

A: Mga a-alas (sic) nueve (9 a.m.) hanggang tanghali ang pasok
niya, Ma’am.

Q: Sabi mo, hindi mo nakita na umalis ang mag-asawa?

A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Sinong mag-asawa ang tinutukoy mo?

A: Ang may-ari po ng bahay.

Q: Ano pong pangalan ng mag-asawang iyon, kung kilala mo?

A: Ang babae lang po ang kilala namin, Ma’am.

Q: Ibig sabihin, noong araw na iyon ay gumagawa ka, at ikaw ay

nakaharap sa ginagawa mo. Ang pintuan ay nasa baba kaya
hindi mo nakikita kung sino ang lumalabas at pumapasok sa
loob ng bahay?
A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: Kaya hindi ka rin sigurado dahil nga nasa second floor ka, nasa
terrace at gumagawa ay hindi ka nga sigurado kung sino sino ang
mga pumasok at lumabas doon sa bahay na iyon?
A: Siya lang po ang lumabas, Ma’am.

Q: Sigurado ka ba na wala nang ibang pumasok?

A: Wala na po, Ma’am.

Q: Paano ka nakakasigurado, Mr. Witness?

A: Kasi may tindahan sa harap namin, doon kami nagmemerienda,
Ma’am.

Q: Pero sabi mo ang breaktime niyo ay 15 minutes lang?

A: 15 minutes nga po, Ma’am. Bumababa kami dahil may tindahan
sa baba.

Q: Pero sa buong araw na iyon, bukod doon sa 15 minutes na break

niyo ay nandoon ka sa terrace gumagawa?
A: Opo, Ma’am.

Q: At nasaan nga ang pintuan ng bahay na pinangyarihan?

A: Nasa baba lang po, Ma’am.

Q: Nakikita mo ba lahat ng pumapasok at lumalabas sa bahay na

iyon?
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 9
x-----------------------------------x

A: Matatanaw po namin, Ma’am, kung sino ang lalabas at papasok,

Ma’am.

Q: Ibig sabihin ba, Mr. Witness, buong araw, 8 a.m. hanggang 5

p.m. ay binabantayan mo ang pintuan?
A: Hindi naman po, Ma’am.

Q: Ibig sabihin, hindi mo rin alam kung mayroong ibang pumasok o

lumabas ng bahay na iyon?
A: Opo, Ma’am. (Emphases supplied.)

A reading of Alberto’s testimony readily reveals a crucial flaw which

destroys the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution –
Alberto was incapable of knowing whether there were any other persons
who entered or exited the house before and after accused-appellant left at 2
o’clock in the afternoon on March 4, 2020.

Alberto admitted that he was not paying attention to Jeremy’s house

the entire time he was doing repairs on the neighboring house’s terrace. This
is consistent with common human experience, because it is highly unlikely
for someone making repairs on a house, a task which requires precision, to
also be keeping a close eye on the neighboring house. Alberto’s inattention
to Jeremy’s house is clearly established by the fact that he did not see
Roselle leave the house. Alberto attested that on that fateful day, he worked
on the neighbor’s terrace from 8 o’clock in the morning to 5 o’clock in the
afternoon, yet also admitted that he did not see when Roselle left.
Meanwhile, in her testimony, Roselle stated that she left the house at 9
o’clock in the morning. Therefore, if Alberto was truly paying attention to
Jeremy’s house, how could he not have seen Roselle leaving that time when
he was already in the area working on the terrace.

Further, Alberto contradicted Genrick’s testimony. Genrick stated that

he left the house at 11 o’clock in the morning, while Alberto’s account saw
him leaving the house at 9 in the morning. This contradiction further
weakens the credibility of Alberto’s testimony.

It cannot be overstated that the prosecution’s entire case against

accused-appellant rests on Alberto’s testimony. It is only Alberto who
claimed that he saw no one else but accused-appellant leaving or entering
the house after 2 o’clock in the afternoon on the day of the incident. Yet, as
above-discussed, Alberto’s testimony failed to establish that crucial claim.
Instead, the only thing confirmed by Alberto’s testimony is that accused-
appellant hurriedly left the house at 2 in the afternoon on March 4, 2020.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 10
x-----------------------------------x

In sum, the prosecution’s witnesses were only able to establish the

following circumstantial evidence:

1) That accused-appellant and Genmark had repeated verbal

arguments in the past, at least until their brother Jeremy
talked to them, and that the two never resorted to
violence;
2) Roselle knew that accused-appellant, Genmark and
Genrick were still at the house at the time she left at 9
o’clock in the morning on March 4, 2020;
3) Genrick left the house at 11 o’clock in the morning on
March 4, 2020 (without specifying whether he saw if
accused-appellant and Genmark were still at the house
when he left); and
4) Accused-appellant hurriedly left the house at 2 o’clock in
the afternoon on March 4, 2020.

These pieces of circumstantial evidence miserably fail to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant perpetrated the crime.
Another important thing We must emphasize is that the autopsy or Medico-
Legal Report dated March 6, 202012 of Genmark’s body did not state an
estimated time of death. Instead, it only stated the following:

POSTMORTEM FINDINGS: Fully developed, fairly-nourished male

cadaver, in secondary flaccidity. Lips and nailbeds are pale and cyanotic.
Conjuctivae are pale. Postmortem lividity noted at the dependent areas of
the body.

CONCLUSION: The cause of death is MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS,

TRUNK.

Accordingly, another piece of circumstantial evidence is absent – time

of death. Thus, Genmark’s untimely death could have been between the time
that accused-appellant left the house at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and the
time that Genrick saw his lifeless body at 8 o’clock in the evening. This also
means that even assuming arguendo that Alberto was watching Jeremy’s
house like a hawk from 8 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, while he was
working on the terrace, there was still a three-hour gap unaccounted for.
That is, from 5 o’clock in the afternoon to 8 o’clock in the evening in which
time another person could have entered the house and killed Genmark.

12 Records, p. 88.
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 11
x-----------------------------------x

Hence, there are truly only two circumstances which tend to point to
accused-appellant as the perpetrator: (1) that he had heated verbal arguments
with Genmark, something that is not unusual between brothers (the time of
which are unspecified); and (2) that he hurriedly left the house on the day of
Genmark’s death, which could be explained by several reasons, such as
simply being late for a mid-week service, as accused-appellant claims. To
convict a man on the basis of these two circumstances would be against the
Constitutional principle of presumption of innocence. The constitutional
presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary
importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness
of the defense he put up but on the strength of the evidence for the
Prosecution.13

In Bastian v. Court of Appeals,14 the Supreme Court emphasized that

one of the essential requisites for a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence to prosper is that “the combination of all the circumstances results
in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the one
who has committed the crime. Thus, to justify a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be
interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the accused.”

Here, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution failed

to establish moral certainty that accused-appellant, to the exclusion of all
others, killed Genmark. Based on the evidence presented, there lingers a
doubt that another person could have killed Genmark.

Therefore, finding the prosecution’s evidence to be severely lacking in

establishing the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, an
acquittal is at hand.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July

13, 2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 153, in
Criminal Case No. 3664, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is entered in that accused-appellant GARREN MAGBANUA y
SALAZAR is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges and he is ORDERED
IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless there exists lawful
cause for his continued detention. Let entry of judgment issue immediately.

Copy of this Decision is ordered furnished to the Director of the

13 People v. Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011.

14 G.R. No. 160811, April 18, 2008
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 12
x-----------------------------------x

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation, and

the said officer is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five
(5) days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RUBEN REYNALDO G. ROXAS
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDUARDO S. RAMOS, JR.
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CR No. 46394
DECISION
Page 13
x-----------------------------------x

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Eighth (8th) Division