Facts:

People of the Philippines vs. Dionesio Santiago

GR. No. 133445, February 27, 2003

Before this Court is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City, Branch 13, convicting accused-appellant Dionesio Santiago of double
murder.
Accused-appellant was charged of double murder in one information for the
killing of Egmedio Carigay and his live-in partner Myrna Sasona. Although he was
charged of two crimes in one Information, accused-appellant did not file any motion to
quash the same. During the arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel,
entered a plea of Not Guilty.
Igmedio Carigay and accused-appellant, both residents of Barangay Batonan
Sur, Culasi, Antique, had a quarrel over irrigation rights. They hacked each other, and
as a result, sustained injuries. However, they settled their differences at the Citizen
Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU) detachment in the presence of CAGFU
agent Pepito Calauod. Six (6) months after the altercation between Igmedio and
accused-appellant took place, Pepito passed by the house of accused-appellant and
heard him swear: "Indi matapos ang bulan nga dya, patyon ko si Igmedio
Carigay." (Before this month ends, Ill kill Igmedio Carigay).
Two days later, Manuel Magsipoc, the brother-in-law of Igmedio, was at the
latters house to borrow a sack of palay. When Manuel left for his home, while he was
about fifty meters from the house of Igmedio, Manuel met a group of five men walking
towards said house. Four of the men wore masks. The fifth, whom Manuel recognized
as accused-appellant, did not. Accused-appellant was armed with a bolo in its
scabbard. Manuel thought it odd that the companions of accused-appellant were
wearing masks. Nevertheless, Manuel and accused-appellant greeted each other.
Manuel continued on his way back home.
At around 8:00 p.m. that day, Bien Beloya was on his way to the house of
Igmedio and the latters live-in partner, Myrna Samsona, to partake of some food
prepared by them for New Years eve. Bien had carried a flashlight to illumine his way

Page | 1

from his house to the house of Igmedio which was located in a farmland about two
kilometers away from his house. Earlier, Igmedio and Myrna had invited Bien to spend
New Years eve with them and Bien had agreed. When Bien was about 20 meters from
the house of the couple, near the fence thereof, he heard Myrna crying and
pleading: "Please dont kill us." Bien tarried by the fence, and heard accused-appellant
saying: "I

will

kill

you

all!" Again,

Myrna

pleaded,

saying: "Please

dont

kill

us." Accused-appellant and Bien knew each other very well. They used to fish at sea
together. However, Bien had no idea why accused-appellant would threaten to kill
Myrna.
Momentarily, Bien saw Igmedio running out of their house followed by accusedappellant and four other men. A petromax lamp lighted the house of Igmedio.
Accused-appellant and his companions were armed with knives and bolos. Igmedio
tripped and stumbled. Accused-appellant and his companions surrounded Igmedio
and stabbed him. Bien stepped forward and hid behind a banana plant, about six
arms length from where Igmedio was being stabbed. Bien was shocked by what he
had just witnessed. Accused-appellant and his companions sensed the presence of
Bien. Accused-appellant then said: "Who is that? Bien instinctively replied: "I am
Then" and simultaneously flashed his flashlight on accused-appellant and his
companions. Bien fled as fast as he could towards the direction of the CAFGU
detachment in Batonan Sur along the national highway. However, accused-appellant
and his companions ran after Bien and blocked his way. The latter detoured, ran
upstream towards the river of Tigbobolo and on towards his house.
At around 4:00 a.m. the next day, accused-appellant arrived in the house of
Bien and told the latter to go to San Jose and stay there. Accused-appellant warned
Bien that accused-appellant, and his companions will kill him if Bien refused to obey.
Fearing for his life, Bien did as told and fled posthaste to San Jose where he stayed for
a week. As his conscience bothered him, Bien decided to report the incident to
Manuel, the brother-in-law of Igmedio.
When apprised that Igmedio and Myrna were already dead, CAFGU agent Pepito went
to the house of the couple and saw them sprawled in the yard of the house, their
bodies already in a state of decomposition. He entered the house of the couple and
Page | 2

saw suman and cooked chicken. The police took pictures of the cadavers of the
victims.
When Manuel learned of the deaths of Igmedio and Myrna, he rushed to the house of
the couple and saw their bodies with stab wounds. Their cadavers were already
emitting foul odor.
Dr. Babayen-on testified that the stab wounds may have possibly been caused
by a sharp object like knife or bolo or "talibong." It was also possible that the victims
were killed by two or in more assailants. The victims had been dead more than 24
hours before the autopsy.
Accused-appellant denied the charge. He testified that on the day of the
incident he went in the house of Arthur Alocilja which was about a kilometer away
from his house. He was requested by Arthur to slaughter a dog for the new years
celebration. He was assisted by Eliza Cadapan in cooking the food for the guests.
Accused-appellant stayed at the house of Arthur for about five hours, and at around
11:00 p.m. he and Eliza went to see a video show at a nearby house owned by
Arthurs mother. The testimony of accused-appellant was corroborated by Arthur and
Eliza.
The trial court rendered a decision convicting accused-appellant of double
murder for the death of Myrna Samsona?
Issue:
Whether or not after killing of Igmedio Carigay, Dionesia Santiago killed Myrna
Samsona in the absence of direct evidence against him?
Ruling:
Yes. With respect to the killing of Myrna, it is irrefragable that the prosecution
failed to adduce direct evidence that accused-appellant killed her. However, direct
evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubt for said crimes.

Page | 3

In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing

circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. For circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient as proof of the guilt of an accused, the prosecution is must prove the
confluence of the following requisites:
(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.16
No general rule can be laid down as to the number of circumstances that must
be adduced in evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. What is paramount is that
all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is innocent and with every rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
The facts and circumstances must be such as are absolutely incompatible upon any
reasonable hypothesis with the innocence of the accused and incapable of
explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other that of the guilt of the
accused.17 Circumstantial evidence is sufficient as basis for conviction if it constitutes
an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion proving that
accused-appellant is the author of the crimes charge, to the exclusion of all
others.18 In the present case, the prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial
evidence to show that accused-appellant killed Myrna. As correctly stated by the trial
court in its decision:
As to the death of Myrna Samsona, there is no doubt that the herein accused
together with the four others which were not identified are responsible and have
directly participated in the commission of the crime. The prosecutions witnesses
testified that Dionesio Santiago together with his companions killed Igmedio Carigay.
Likewise prior to that incident, they likewise killed Myrna Samsona. This is evident
from the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Adduced evidences proved
beyond doubt that Myrna Samsona died as a result of multiple stab wounds caused
by sharp edge objects, the same instruments used in the killing of Dionesio Santiago.
Page | 4

Admittedly, as far as the death of Myrna Samsona the prosecution is wanting of

an eyewitness to the incident in question, however, during the time the killing of
Myrna Samsona was executed Bien Beloya overheard the moaning of a woman and
pleading that they, referring to Igmedio and herself not to be killed. Bien Beloya
testified that she (sic) is familiar of (sic) the voice of Myrna Samsona and likewise she
(sic) is familiar of (sic) the voice of Dionesio Santiago when the latter said to the two
(2) victims, "I will kill you all" (TSN, November 22, 1994 at p. 11). In other words, as
far as the death of Myrna Samsona, the prosecution relied heavily on the evidence
that established the identity and culpability of the herein accused when Bien Beloya
testified that he heard Myrna Samsona pleading and that of the voice of Dionesio
Santiago who was then determined to kill both victims in this case and thereafter he
affirmed that he saw Dionesio Santiago came out of the house together with his four
(4) companions and assaulting Igmedio Carigay. The testimony of Bien Beloya as far
as the death of Myrna Samsona although derived from other source other than the
eye witness account, yet, the act which is charged against Dionesio Santiago and his
companions caused to prove a fact or series of facts which is the facts in issue, which
as proof, it tend by inferences to establish the commission of the crime. The
circumstances relied by the prosecution formed an unbroken chain to prove the
culpability of accused Dionesio Santiago and his four other companions.19
Accused-appellants submission that Bien could have mistaken the voice of
accused-appellant for that of the felon who killed Myrna because the voice of one
shouting is different from that made in a normal or ordinary tone does not persuade.
Bien could not have mistaken accused-appellants voice considering that both had
known each other for a long time. From December 8 up to December 31, 1993, the
two always met each other because they used to fish at sea.
Biens identification of accused-appellant as the assailant through his voice
cannot be disparaged. This Court held in People vs. Reynaldo23 that identification by
the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it has been
established that the witness and the accused had known each other for a number of
years:

Page | 5

It is not necessary that the witnesss knowledge of the fact to which he testifies
should have been obtained in any particular manner, and he may testify to what he
hears, feels, tastes, smells, or sees.
Thus, identification by the sound of the voice of the person identified has been
held sufficient, and it is an acceptable means of identification where it is established
that the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely for a
number of years. Here, the complainant testified that she had known appellant for
seven years prior to the incident because he lived only a house away from theirs.
Appellant himself admitted having known the complainant by name in the three to
four years that he had stayed in Barangay Bambanan. As observed by the trial court,
the complainant and appellant "were familiar with each other since they lived together
in the same barangay [and] x x x the house of the complainant is barely ten arms
length away from the house where the accused lived." Indeed, people in rural
communities generallly know each other both by face and by name, and may be
expected to know each others distinct and particular features and characteristics.
The Court agrees with the trial court. Accused-appellant stabbed Myrna with a
knife even as she pleaded for her life.
In the light of the evidence on record, accused-appellant is guilty of murder,
defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of homicide, for the deaths
of Igmedio and Myrna.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Antique, Branch 13 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.

Page | 6