People Vs Matignas
People Vs Matignas
People Vs Matignas
trial court gave full credence to the positive identification of Nelita de la Cruz and others as well
as their statements that defendant was tailing victim before her death. The court also took into
consideration that another suspect, De Guzman confessed that both he and his co-appellant raped
and killed the victim.
Issue: WON the ruling of the trial court is untenable due to the alleged weakness of
circumstantial evidence against appellants.
Held: The court found the petition partly meritorious as the prosecutions witnesses has
submitted testimonies that though not conflicting, has failed to agree on certain details. The
appellant also contended that some of the witnesses, especially Nelita dela Cruz cannot be given
full credence as she initially stood as witness against Cesar Jablo. Also some of the witnesses has
remained silent and revealed their knowledge only 6 months after the killings. As for the weight
of the circumstantial evidence, This Court has iterated that 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. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which
indirectly proves a fact in issue an inference which the factfinder draws from the evidence
established. Resort thereto is essential when the lack of direct testimony would result in setting a
felon free. 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. The following
circumstances form the unbroken chain which lead us to conclude beyond moral certainty that
appellants were the culprits:
First, the testimony of Hernandez, who just came from a jueteng lottery, that he saw a man
following a girl and upon reaching A. Bonifacio Street another man appeared who likewise tailed
her; upon reaching the ERES gate, both men suddenly embraced, pulled and grabbed the girl
(whom he later learned to be the victim) around 3:45 a.m. on January 10, 1994.
Second, Fernandez, who was with Hernandez at that time because he also participated in the
said lottery, gave a similar testimony.
Third, Dela Cruz narrated that she saw the victim in the wee hours of the morning and that
she was being followed by Appellant De Guzman.
Fourth, Perez said that he also observed Matignas near the gambling place during that time.
Fifth, the finding of the body of the victim at a vacant lot near the ERES school.
Sixth, the finding of the Matignas bullcap near the place where the body of the victim was
found.
Seventh, the admission of Appellant Matignas that he was out prowling his neighborhood in
the early hours of the morning of January 10, 1994.
Eight, appellants were the last persons seen with the victim before her corpse was found a
few hours thereafter.
Ninth, Hernandez, Fernandez, Dela Cruz, and Perez had no ill motive to testify against
appellants.
From the foregoing circumstances, it is undisputed that appellants were physically present at the
scene of the crime and its immediate vicinity, and that several eyewitnesses positively identified
them as the same persons who tailed, embraced and pulled the victim in front of the gate of the
ERES school along A. Bonifacio Street before her body was discovered at a vacant lot near the
said school.