SOURCE: 2011-0047: BENJAMIN JESALVA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO.

187725,19 JANUARY 2011, NACHURA, J.) SUBJECTS: HOMICIDE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE; CUSTODIAN INVESTIGATION. (BRIEF TITLE: JESALVA VS. PEOPLE)
x-x
WHAT IS CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION?
Custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after
a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
WHAT DOES CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PRESUPPOSE?
This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator
is trying to elicit information or a confession from him.
WHEN DOES THE RULE ON CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEGIN TO APPLY?
The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has
been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions
which tend to elicit incriminating statements.
SUPPOSE THE SUSPECT WENT TO THE POLICE STATION AND NARRATED EVENTS
FREELY? IS HE CONSIDERED UNDER POLICE INVESTIGATION?
No.
The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all
elicited through questioning. It was established that petitioner, together with his cousin
Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the police station and voluntarily made the statement that
Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of September 9, 1992. The RTC and the
CA did not, therefore, err in holding that the constitutional procedure for custodial
investigation is not applicable in the instant case.

G.R. No. 187725

January 19, 2011

BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review1 on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated October 17, 2008,
which affirmed with modification the decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon,
Sorsogon, dated November 18, 1997, finding petitioner Benjamin Jesalva alias Ben
Sabaw4 (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
The Facts
On September 11, 1992, the Chief of Police of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, filed a criminal complaint 5 for
Frustrated Murder against petitioner. Four days thereafter, or on September 15, 1992, the complaint
was amended, charging petitioner with the crime of Murder, as the victim Leticia Aldemo 6 (Leticia)
died on September 14, 1992.7 After conducting a hearing on the bail application of petitioner, the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, on December 18, 1992, granted him bail. 8 On
January 11, 1993, the MTC recommended the filing of Murder against petitioner, and then ordered
the transmittal of the records of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon. 9
Thus, petitioner was charged with the crime of Murder in an Information10 dated January 26, 1993,
which reads:
That on or about the 9th day of September, 1992 in the Municipality of Sorsogon, Province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with treachery and evident
premeditation with the use of motor vehicle and during night time, did then and there [wilfully],
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, manhandle and use personal violence upon [Leticia]
Aldemo, inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal wounds which directly caused her death shortly
thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned on March 1, 1993, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
charged.11 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions
arose.
Version of the Prosecution
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are essentially summarized by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), as follows:
In the evening of September 8, 1992, witness Gloria Haboc, together with the victim Leticia Aldemo,
Benjamin Jesalva (petitioner), Elog Ubaldo,12 Jo Montales and Romy Paladin were at Nenas place
playing mahjong. A certain Mrs. Encinas and Atty. Alibanto were also there. At about 10 oclock that
night, Glorias group left Nenas place and boarded the Isuzu panel of petitioner. With the exception
of Jo Montales, the group proceeded to Bistro Christina to eat and drink. While Gloria had softdrink,
Leticia drank two (2) bottles of beer, and the rest consumed beer and [F]undador until 11:30 in the
evening.
After they ate and drank, the group, with the exception of Elog Ubaldo who flagged down a tricycle,
once again boarded petitioners Isuzu panel as it was usually petitioner who drove them home. The
victim Leticia Aldemo was seated at the front seat. Petitioner dropped Romy Paladin at his house

first, followed by Gloria, who resided some 20 meters away from Leticias house. While at Glorias
house, petitioner wanted to drink some more but Gloria told him to defer it until the next day because
the stores were already closed. Gloria then gave Leticia three (3) sticks of barbecue and
accompanied her and petitioner at the gate. After petitioner and Leticia boarded the Isuzu [panel],
the former immediately accelerated his car and went to the direction of 6th Street instead of towards
7th Street where Leticias house was situated.
At about 12:20 early morning of September 9, 1992, the group of SPO1 Edgardo Mendoza (SPO1
Mendoza) of the Sorsogon PNP Mobile Patrol Section chanced upon petitioners Isuzu [panel] in St.
Rafael Subdivision in [Our Ladys Village] OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon. The police patrol team
approached the vehicle and SPO1 Mendoza focused a flashlight at the front portion of the vehicle to
check what was going on. There, SPO1 Mendoza saw petitioner whom he knew since childhood
seated in front of the wheel so he called out his name. Instead of heeding his call, however,
petitioner did not respond, immediately started the engine and sped away toward Sorsogon town
proper which is directly opposite his place of residence which is Ticol, Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
At about the same time that night, Noel Olbes, a driver for the MCST Sisters holding office at the
Bishops Compound in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, was also in OLV Pangpang. While he was walking from
a certain Leas house, he saw a woman naked from the waist down and lying on her belly on the
highway. Her jeans and [panty] were beside her. Because it was raining, Olbes pitied her so he
carried her and her things to the shed some 10 meters away. As he was doing so, a tricycle being
driven by Eduardo De Vera focused its headlight in his direction. De Vera called out, "What is that?"
Because he received no response from Noel Olbes, he decided to bring his passenger home first
and just come back to check the site later.
Meanwhile, upon reaching the shed, Olbes noticed that the woman was bleeding that he even got
stained with her blood. Afraid that he might be implicated, he hurriedly left the woman at Hazelwood
such that when De Vera came back, he no longer found Olbes. De Vera then proceeded to the
police station to report the incident to [SPO1] Balaoro.
De Vera, SPO1 Balaoro and SPO1 Sincua eventually returned to comb the area but to no avail. On
their way back at about 1:15 oclock (sic) in the morning, they met Lt. Caguia talking with Noel
Olbes. De Vera lost no time in identifying him to be the man he saw with the woman. At this point,
Olbes admitted the allegation but professed innocence. He admitted he left the woman in Hazelwood
where the police found her.
Eventually, Olbes was investigated by the police and was not released until the next day. However,
because the evidence pointed to petitioner as the last person seen with the victim, a search for him
was conducted. He "surrendered" at one (1) oclock in the afternoon accompanied by Fiscal Jose
Jayona, his first cousin.13
The prosecution highlighted that, per testimony of Gloria Haboc, Leticia disclosed to her that
petitioner was courting Leticia. However, Leticia told petitioner that they should just remain as friends
because she was already married, and that she loved her handsome husband. 14 Moreover, the
prosecution asseverated that, at around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 1992, while conducting patrol in
St. Rafael Subdivision, 15 together with other police officers, Senior Police Officer 1 Edgardo
Mendoza (SPO1 Mendoza), by using his flashlight, saw petitioner on board his vehicle alone. Upon
sight, petitioner immediately started his vehicle and drove toward the town proper of Sorsogon,
which was directly opposite his residence in Ticol, Sorsogon, disregarding SPO1 Mendozas

calls.16 Lastly, at about 1:00 p.m. of September 9, 1992, petitioner, together with his first cousin Fiscal
Jose Jayona (Fiscal Jayona), went to the police station, wherein he voluntarily intimated to SPO4
William Desder (SPO4 Desder) that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle. 17 At about 1:20 p.m. of
September 9, 1992, SPO2 Enrique Renoria, together with other police officers, Fiscal Jayona, and
petitioner inspected the place, which petitioner identified as the place where he and Leticia sat. They
found bloodstains thereat.18
After the prosecution presented twelve (12) witnesses, the defense moved for leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence. On February 21, 1994, the defense filed before the RTC, Branch 51, its
Demurrer to Evidence,19 which the RTC, Branch 51, denied in its Order20 dated July 8, 1994. On
August 11, 1994, the defense filed a Motion21 for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 8, 1994
and Inhibition of Presiding Judge, which the prosecution opposed. The Presiding Judge of the RTC,
Branch 51, voluntarily inhibited himself from taking any further action in the case; 22 hence, the case
was re-raffled to the RTC, Branch 52. Acting on the pending Motion for Reconsideration of the
defense, the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 52, denied the same and set the reception of
evidence of the defense.23
Version of the Defense
In his relatively short stint on the witness stand, petitioner denied that he killed Leticia. He testified
that he did not have any reason to kill her, and that he had many reasons why he should not kill
her.24 The prosecution manifested that it would not conduct a cross-examination on the person of
petitioner as his testimony was tantamount to pure denial.25 To prove that there was a broken chain
of circumstantial evidence, the defense presented, as witness, Eduardo de Vera. The CA narrated:
12. Eduardo de Vera declared that on September 9, 1992 at about 12:30 a.m., he was
driving his tricycle en route to OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon; upon reaching the junction of the
national road or highway, he saw a man and a woman three meters from the edge of the
road; he stopped his tricycle and focused the headlight of his tricycle towards the two; he
saw the woman leaning on the left arm of the man while the man was on a squatting
position; he asked them "what is that?" and did not get any response; that the man was
hiding his face and saw little blood on the clothes of the woman; he saw the woman with
clothes, a polo shirt and pants; he decided to bring home his passenger home (sic) first and
then returned to the scene but found no one there; he reported the matter to [SPO1] Balaoro,
who immediately accompanied him to the place; they searched for the man and woman but
they could not find them; they checked the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital but nobody had
been brought there; then they proceeded back to the junction and later to the Sorsogon town
proper; upon reaching Barangay Tugos, they saw [Lt.] Caguia talking with a man, whom he
(De Vera) recognized as the man with the woman; [Lt.] Caguia directed the man to go to
Police Sub-Station 1; at the police Sub-Station 1, he came to know the name of the man
Noel Olbes; he saw bloodstains on Olbes arms, hands, face and nose; the police
interrogated him about it and he replied that he just helped the woman.
On cross-examination, he admitted that he has known [petitioner] for a longtime; and he has good
relationship with him; [petitioner] was his bondsman in Criminal Case No. 95-3989 for illegal
possession of firearms and because of this, he is indebted to him and he thus wants to repay his
gratitude to [petitioner]; [petitioner] requested him to be a witness in the case. 26

Relative to the subsequent events, the CA summarized the testimonies of SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro
and Noel Olbes (Olbes), as follows:
6. SPO1 Eduardo Balaoro essayed that at around 1:00 a.m. of September 9, 1992, Eduardo
De Vera reported to him at the Police Sub-Station 1 that he saw a man, who was in squatting
position, and a woman, who had blood on the upper right breast of her clothes, lean[ing]
against the man and that after De Vera brought his tricycle passenger home, he returned to
the site but he could not find the two anymore; upon receiving the report, he (SPO1 Balaoro),
together with SPO1 Sincua and De Vera, proceeded to the diversion road, at the junction
going to the hospital and Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon to investigate; they searched the
place and went to the hospital but found nothing; on their way back, at around 1:15 [a.m.]
they saw Noel Olbes talking with Lt. Caguia at Barangay Tugos; De Vera pointed to Olbes as
the man he saw with the woman at the crossing so they brought him to Police Sub-Station 1
for investigation; Olbes told them that he saw the woman lying on the side of the road so he
tried to lift her up but when he saw the tricycle (De Veras) he became afraid as he might be
implicated in the crime so he brought her to Hazelwood, which is five meters away from the
highway; at 2:25 a.m. the patrol team found Leticia Aldemo, whom they found naked from
the waist down; at the garage of Hazelwood; they found the long pants of the victim lying
beside her and noted that her panty was still on one of her knees; the victims body appeared
to have been laid down; they did not find any blood in the garage except where the victims
body was found outside the garage, they saw the other pair of shoes of a woman and thick
bloodstains; he (SPO1 Balaoro) brought Olbes to Balogo station and entrusted him to their
investigator.
7. Noel Olbes testified that he is a driver for the MCST Sisters who are holding office at the
Bishops Compound in Sorsogon, Sorsogon; that on September 8, 1997, he went out with his
friends Danny, Oca and Ely in Almendras to drink a bottle of gin; at around 6:30 p.m. he went
to downtown Sorsogon and roamed around until 10:30 p.m.; then he went to Bahay Kainan
and at about 11:00 or 11:30 p.m., he went to Pena Fast Food and took a bottle of beer; upon
the invitation of Lea, he went inside Pena and drank another bottle of beer; he brought Lea
to her home at OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon; from Leas house, he walked and upon
reaching the junction of OLV, he saw a woman lying on her belly naked from the waist down;
the woman was just uttering guttural sound; her jeans and panty were just lying beside her;
taking pity on the woman and since it was raining that night, he carried the woman to a
nearby shed in order that she would not be run over by motor vehicles; he also took the
panty and the jeans to the shed; he noticed that a tricycle stopped for a while and focused its
headlight on them and proceeded on its way; when he laid down the woman in the shed, he
noticed that she was bleeding and he was stained with her blood; after seeing the blood, he
got scared and left; he walked towards the Sorsogon town proper and after about forty-five
minutes, two policem[e]n apprehended him and brought him to the police station for
investigation; while being investigated, he was not apprised of his constitutional rights and
made to sign the police blotter; he was detained as he was a suspect for the injuries of the
victim; after 7 or 8 hours, he was released; and he executed a Sworn Statement and affirmed
its contents.27
Dr. Antonio Dioneda, Jr.28 and Dr. Wilhelmino Abrantes (Dr. Abrantes) testified on the injuries
suffered by Leticia, which eventually caused her death:

9. Dr. Antonio Dionedas testified that he encountered on September 9, 1992 a patient by the
name of Leticia Aldemo, who was in comatose state; she sustained the following injuries (1)
severe cerebral contusion; (2) 2.5 cm punctured wound, occipital area (3) .5 cm punctured
wound, parietal left area[;] (4) multiple contusion hematoma antero lateral aspect deltoid left
area[;] (5) contusion hematoma 3rd upper left arm; (6) contusion hematoma left elbow[;] (7)
abrasion left elbow[;] (8) hematoma, 3rd left thigh[;] (9) abrasion right knee[;] (10) multiple
confluent abrasion right foot[;] (11) contusion hematoma right hand[;] (12) abrasion right
elbow[;] (13) contusion hematoma right elbow[;] and (14) skull-segmented fracture parietal
bone with separation.
He explained that the punctured wound in the occipital area (lower back of the skull) was
caused by a pebble which they recovered from said area; the punctured wound on the
parietal left area was caused by a sharp object and may have been secondary to a fall on a
rough surface; the first three findings could also have been caused by the punch made by
the perpetrator; the fourth finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or a punch
or a strong grip; the fifth and the sixth findings could have been caused also by some of the
above-mentioned means; the eighth finding could have been caused by a fall or rubbing on a
hard object; the ninth finding could have been caused by a blunt instrument or a fist blow
while the tenth finding could have been caused by a fall on a rough object and the knee
rubbing on a rough object; the eleventh finding could have been due to a fall or by being
dragged; the twelfth finding could be caused by a blunt instrument or by a fall or by fist blow
and the thirteenth finding could also be caused by a fall or fist blow.
He stated [that] the victim died despite the operation he performed on her.
xxxx
14. Dr. Wilhelmino Abrantes He explained the different kinds of injuries sustained by the
victim. In addition, he stated that since there were wounds sustained by the victim in the
dorsum part of the foot and sustained injuries on both knees, upper portion of the back of the
hand, the victim could have been thrown off while unconscious.29
The RTCs Ruling
On November 18, 1997, the RTC ruled in favor of the prosecution, finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, not of the crime of Murder, but of Homicide. The
RTC ratiocinated that, in the absence of any direct evidence or testimonies of eyewitnesses,
treachery was not established, and that evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were
not duly proven. Thus, the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Benjamin Jesalva alias Ben
Sabaw guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide penalized under Art. 249 of the
Revised Penal Code and considering that there was no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances
attendant thereto and taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court hereby
sentences the accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum
and to pay death indemnity of the sum of P50,000.00 to the legal heirs of the victim, plus P42,755.45
for compensatory damages plus P50,000.00 by way of moral damages and P10,000.00 as
attorneys fees (People v. Aguiluz, March 11, 1992).

SO ORDERED.30
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.31
The CAs Ruling
On October 17, 2008, the CA pertinently held, among others, that petitioner could not point to Olbes
as the culprit because, when Eduardo de Vera saw the former holding on to Leticia in a squatting
position, Olbes was in the act of lifting her in order to bring her to the nearby shed. The CA opined
that, if any misdeed or omission could be attributed to Olbes, it was his failure to bring Leticia to a
nearby hospital, because his fear of being implicated in the crime clouded his better judgment. Thus:
All told, We find that the prosecutions evidence suffice to sustain the accused-appellants conviction
for homicide.
As to the award of attorneys fees, We find the award of P10,000.00 by the trial court meritorious, the
records reveal that services of private prosecutor was engaged.
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. With the
attendant mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of accused-appellant, the penalty reclusion
temporal is imposed in its minimum period. Accordingly, accused-appellant Benjamin J. Jesalva
should suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
temporal as maximum and SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon,
Sorsogon, Branch 52 dated November 18, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 3243 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as to the penalty.
Accused-appellant Benjamin J. Jesalva is sentenced to serve the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.32
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,33 which the CA, however, denied in its
Resolution34 dated April 7, 2009 for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds:
A) THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RTC DECISIONS CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE
CRIME OF HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WERE BOTH
NOT IN ACCORD WITH ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE REQUIRING THAT SUCH BE
ACTED WITH CAUTION AND THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL FACTS MUST BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT; AND
B) THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL COURT, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
RULING THAT STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER IN THE POLICE STATION WERE
ADMISSIBLE AS HE WAS THEN NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION DESPITE

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED BY THE

POLICE HAD HIS FISCAL-COMPANION NOT [TAKEN] HIM UNDER HIS CUSTODY.35
Petitioner argues that no evidence was ever introduced as to how, when, and where Leticia
sustained her injuries. No witness ever testified as to who was responsible for her injuries. He
refutes the prosecutions contention that, even if he took the 6th Street, the same could still lead to
the 7th Street, where Leticias house is located. Petitioner stresses that Olbes should have been
considered as a suspect in this case, considering that he was the last person seen with Leticia when
she was still alive. He avers that the statements he made at the police station are not admissible in
evidence, considering that he was, technically, under custodial investigation, and that there was no
waiver of his right to remain silent.36 Moreover, petitioner alleges that the fatal injuries sustained by
Leticia, per the testimony of Dr. Abrantes, are consistent with a fall, thereby suggesting petitioners
innocence. Petitioner claims that the evidence shows that there was more blood in Hazelwood than
in the place where Olbes spotted Leticia, thereby suggesting that something worse than her jumping
out of the vehicle might have happened.37
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the OSG, argues that only
questions of law may be entertained by this Court, and that we accord great respect to factual
findings of the trial court especially when affirmed by the CA. The OSG insists that the CA, affirming
the RTCs ruling, did not err in convicting petitioner on the basis of circumstantial evidence, because
the particular circumstances enumerated by both the RTC and the CA satisfactorily meet the
requirements of the rules and of jurisprudence for conviction. Moreover, the OSG claims that the
statements made by petitioner before SPO4 Desder, in the presence of Fiscal Jayona, were
voluntarily given and were not elicited on custodial investigation. Lastly, the OSG counters that
petitioner was not deprived of his rights since he was never held for questioning by any police officer
upon arriving at the police station and, besides, he was accompanied by his first cousin, Fiscal
Jayona.38
Our Ruling
The Petition is bereft of merit.
Custodial investigation refers to "any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."
This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator is trying
to elicit information or a confession from him.39 The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as the
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.40 The assailed statements
herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited through questioning. It was
established that petitioner, together with his cousin Fiscal Jayona, personally went to the police
station and voluntarily made the statement that Leticia jumped out of his vehicle at around 12:30
a.m. of September 9, 1992.41The RTC and the CA did not, therefore, err in holding that the
constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not applicable in the instant case.
Be that as it may, even without these statements, petitioner could still be convicted of the crime of
Homicide. The prosecution established his complicity in the crime through circumstantial evidence,
which were credible and sufficient, and which led to the inescapable conclusion that petitioner

committed the said crime. Indeed, when considered in their totality, the circumstances point to
petitioner as the culprit.
Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the only matrix wherefrom a court
may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. There are instances when, although a witness may
not have actually witnessed the commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a
suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the person last
seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the type
of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct
evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
Crimes are usually committed in secret and under condition where concealment is highly probable. If
direct evidence is insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who committed
heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to prove. 42
Thus, there can be a verdict of conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the circumstances
proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the
accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of the crime. However, in order that
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same must comply with these essential
requisites, viz.: (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.43
We accord respect to the following findings of the CA, affirming those of the RTC:
After a thorough review of the records of the case, We find that the circumstantial evidence proved
by the prosecution, when viewed in its entirety, points unerringly to [petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva as
the person responsible for the death of the victim Leticia Aldemo. Truly, the following combination of
the circumstances which comprised such evidence forms an unbroken chain that points to
[petitioner] and no other, as the perpetrator of the crime, to wit:
1. [Petitioner] Benjamin Jesalva (who was previously courting the victim Leticia Aldemo, and
whom the latter advised to stop as she was already married) together with Gloria Haboc, and
six other individuals left Nena Ables house at 10 p.m. of September 8, 1992 after playing
mahjong thereat. They rode in [petitioners] red panel.
2. Benjamin Jesalva, Leticia Aldemo, Gloria Haboc and two others proceeded to Bistro
Christina. [Petitioner], together with other two male companions, consumed one bottle of
Fundador, in addition to the three bottles of beer. At 11:30 p.m., the group left the place.
3. After dropping one male companion at his house, Benjamin Jesalva, together with Leticia
Aldemo, proceeded to bring Gloria Haboc to her home, which was only twenty meters away
from Leticias residence.
4. After staying at Gloria Habocs house for five minutes, and denied another drink, Benjamin
Jesalva immediately accelerated his vehicle en route to 6th Street instead of the shorter and
direct route, the 7th street, where Leticia Aldemos house is located;
5. Leticia Aldemo never reached home as testified by her husband Efren Aldemo;

6. At around 12:20 a.m. of September 9, 1992, the police patrolling the St. Ra[f]ael
Subdivision saw the red panel thereat and when they approached and beamed a flashlight,
they saw Benjamin Jesalva behind the wheel, who suddenly drove away in the direction of
Sorsogon town proper, opposite to where he lives. SPO1 Eduardo Mendoza told Benjamin
Jesalva (whom he had known since his teen-age years) to stop but the latter did not respond
or heed his call;
7. At 12:30 oclock (sic) of even date, Noel Olbes saw the body of Leticia Aldemo sprawled
on her belly at the crossing/junction of OLV, Pangpang Sorsogon, Sorsogon, naked from the
waist down. He lifted her up and brought the body at Hazelwood, which is about 10 meters
away from the highway.
8. The police found the body of the victim at Hazelwood at around 2:15 a.m. of the same day,
and brought her to the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital in comatose condition.
9. The police proceeded to inform the victims sister, who in turn informed the victims
husband of the incident.
10. In the morning of September 9, 1992, the police looked for Benjamin Jesalva to invite
him at the police station but was not able to find him.
11. At around 1:00 oclock p.m. of September 9, 1992, Benjamin Jesalva, together with his
first cousin, Asst. Prosecutor Jose Jayona, presented himself at the PNP Sorsogon,
Sorsogon headquarters, where he voluntarily stated that the victim Leticia Aldemo was his
passenger in his vehicle at about 12:30 in the early morning of September 9, 1992 at St.
Rafael Subdivision but upon reaching the crossing of OLV, Pangpang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon
near the Provincial Hospital, she jumped out of his vehicle. These declarations were
recorded in the police blotter by PO1 Enrique [Renoria] upon the instruction of SPO4 William
Desder, the PNP Sorsogon Chief Investigator.
12. At about 1:30 p.m. of the same day, a police team, together with [petitioner] and Asst.
Prosecutor Jayona, went to St. Ra[f]ael Subdivision to conduct an ocular inspection.
[Petitioner] pointed to the police the place where he and the victim spent their time. The
police photographed what appear[ed] to be bloodstains just two meters away from the place
pointed by [petitioner].
13. Dr. Antonio Dioneda testified that the punctured wound in the occipital area was caused
by a pebble which he recovered from said area; the punctured wound in the parietal left area
was caused by a sharp object and may have been secondary to a fall on a rough surface,
the cerebral contusion, the punctured wound in the occipital and in the parietal area could
also be caused by a punch by the perpetrator. As to the multiple contusion hematoma
anterior lateral aspect of the deltoid left area was caused by a blunt instrument or a punch or
a strong grip; the contusion hematoma on the upper left arm and left elbow could as well be
similarly caused by a blunt instrument or a punch or a strong grip. As to the abrasion on the
right knee, the same could have been caused by a blunt instrument or a fist blow. The
multiple confluent abrasion[s] on the right foot could have been caused by a fall on a rough
object. The abrasions on the right elbow could have been caused by a blunt instrument or by
a fall or by a fist blow. The same is true with the contusion hematoma found on the victims
right elbow.44

Petitioners mere denial cannot outweigh the circumstantial evidence clearly establishing his
culpability in the crime charged. It is well-settled that the positive declarations of a prosecution
witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused. The evidence for the prosecution was found by
both the RTC and the CA to be sufficient and credible, while petitioners defense of denial was weak,
self-serving, speculative, and uncorroborated. Petitioners silence as to the matters that occurred
during the time he was alone with Leticia is deafening. An accused can only be exonerated if the
prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption
of innocence. We find that the prosecution has met this quantum of proof in this case. 45
All told, we find no reversible error in the assailed CA decision which would warrant the modification
much less the reversal thereof.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 17, 2008 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 22126, affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
52, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, in Criminal Case No. 3243, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.