Page 1 of 8

Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming

TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
[G.R. No. 120959. November 14, 1996.] For the slaying, an Information was lodged against Yip Wai Ming on July 19, 1991, which
averred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YIP WAI MING, Accused-Appellant. That on or about July 11, 1993, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Lam Po
SYLLABUS Chun by then and there mauling and strangling the latter, thereby inflicting upon her mortal and
fatal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN ENOUGH TO On May 15, 1995, Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region
PRODUCE A CONVICTION. — Before a conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, stationed in Manila and presided over by the Honorable Lolita O. Gal-lang rendered a decision in
the circumstances should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to but one fair and essence finding that Yip Wai Ming killed his fiancee before he left for the Metro Manila tour.
reasonable conclusion, which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty Disposed thus the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
person (U .S. v. Villos 6 Phil. 510 [1906]; People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692 [1942]). Every
hypothesis consistent with innocence must be excluded if guilt beyond reasonable doubt is WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing established evidence, judgment is hereby rendered
based on circumstantial evidence (U .S. v. Cajayon, 2 Phil. 570 [1903]: (U .S. v. Tan Chian, 17 convicting the accused Yip Wai Ming beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as
Phil. 209 [1010]; U .S. v. Levente, 18 Phil. 439 [1911]). All the evidence must be consistent with charged in the information and as defined in Article 248, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal
the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with that he is Code, and in accordance therewith the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation which
innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt (People v. Andia, 2 SCRA attended the commission of the offense, the said accused Yip Wai Ming is hereby sentenced to
423 [1961]). suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law.

2. ID; ID; EFFECT OF THE; VIOLATION OF SEC. 12, ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION. — The Accused is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Lam Po Chun of Hongkong the
custodial interrogation of accused-appellant was violative of Section 12, Article III of the death indemnity for damages at Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos; Moral and compensatory
Constitution. The Constitution provides that" (3) Any confession or admission obtained in damages of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos each or a total of One Hundred Thousand
violation of this section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible against him." Section 17,. Pesos (P100,000.00); plus costs of suit.
Article III provides: "No confession, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Any
confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, The accused being detained, he is credited with the full extent of the period under which he was
and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence (People v. Duero, 104 under detention, in accordance with the rules governing convicted prisoners.
SCRA 379 [1981]).
SO ORDERED.

DECISION (p. 69, Rollo.)

There was no eyewitness to the actual killing of Lam Po Chun. All the evidence about the killing
MELO, J.: is circumstantial. The key issue in the instant appeal is, therefore, whether or not the
circumstantial evidence linking accused-appellant to the killing is sufficient to sustain a judgment
of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant Yip Wai Ming and victim Lam Po Chun, both Hongkong nationals, came to
Manila on vacation on July 10, 1993. The two were engaged to be married. Hardly a day had The evidence upon which the prosecution convinced the trial court of accused-appellant’s guilt
passed when Lam Po Chun was brutally beaten up and strangled to death in their hotel room. beyond reasonable doubt is summarized in the Solicitor-General’s brief as follows:chanrob1es
On the day of the killing, July 11, 1993, Yip Wai Ming, was touring Metro Manila with Filipino virtual 1aw library
welcomers while Lam Po Chun was left in the hotel room allegedly because she had a headache
and was not feeling well enough to do the sights. On or about 7 o’clock in the evening of July 10, 1993, appellant and his fiancee Lam Po Chun
who are both Hongkong nationals, checked in at Park Hotel located at No. 1032-34 Belen St.,
 Page 2 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
Paco, Manila. They were billeted at Room 210. Angel Gonzaga, the roomboy on duty, assisted
the couple in going up to their room located at the second floor of the hotel (p. 14, tsn, October When the police arrived, they conducted an examination of the condition of the doors and
13, 1993, p. 66, tsn, September 1, 1993). When they reached Room 210, appellant got the key windows of the room as well as the body of the victim and the other surroundings. They found no
from Angel Gonzaga and informed the latter that they do not need any room service, particularly signs of forcible entry and they observed that no one can enter from the outside except the one
the bringing of foods and other orders to their room (pp. 67-69, tsn, September 1, 1993). who has the key. The police also saw the victim wrapped in a colored blanket lying face down.
When they removed the blanket and tried to change the position of her body, the latter was
After staying for about an hour inside Room 210, the couple went down to the lobby of the hotel. already in state of rigor mortis, which indicates that the victim has been dead for ten (10) to
Appellant asked the front desk receptionist on duty to call a certain Gwen delos Santos and to twelve (12) hours. The police calculated that Lam Po Chun must have died between 9 to 10 in
instruct her to pick them up the following day, July 11, 1993, a Sunday at 10 o’clock in the the morning of July 11, 1993 (pp. 2-29), tsn, September 22, 1993).
morning (pp. 21-25, tsn, September 8, 1993).
Dr. Manuel Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the WPD, conducted an autopsy of the body of the
At about past 8 o’clock in the same evening of July 10, 1993, Cariza Destreza, occupant of victim. His examination (Exh. V) revealed that the cause of death was ‘asphyxia by
Room 211 which is adjacent to Room 210, heard a noise which sounds like a heated argument strangulation.’ Dr. Lagonera explained that asphyxia is caused by lack of oxygen entering the
between a man and a woman coming from the room occupied by appellant and Lam Po Chun. body when the entrance of air going to the respiratory system is blocked (pp. 6-19, tsn,
The heated discussions lasted for thirty (30) minutes and thereafter subsided. December 14, 1993).

In the following morning, that is, July 11, 1993, at around 9:15, the same Cariza Destresa again Prior to the death of the victim, her brother, Lam Chi Keung, learned that her life was insured
heard a banging which sounds like somebody was thrown and stomped on the floor inside Room with the Insurance Company of New Zealand in Causeway Bay, Hongkong, with appellant as the
210. Cariza, who became curious, went near the wall dividing her room and Room 210. She beneficiary. The premium paid for the insurance was more than the monthly salary of the
heard a cry of a woman as if she cannot breathe (pp. 23-24, tsn, August 30, 1993). deceased as an insurance underwriter in Hongkong (Exh. X).

At about 10 o’clock a.m., Gwen delos Santos, together with two lady companions, arrived at the It was on the bases of the foregoing facts that appellant was charged before the Regional Trial
lobby of the Park Hotel. The receptionist informed appellant by telephone of her arrival. In Court in Manila for the crime of murder committed against the person of Lam Po Chun.
response, appellant came down without his fiancee Lam Po Chun. After a while he together with
Gwen delos Santos and the latter’s companions, left the hotel. Before leaving, he gave (pp. 3-7, Appellee’s Brief, ff. p. 176, Rollo.)
instruction to the front desk receptionist not to disturb his fiancee at Room 210. He also ordered
not to accept any telephone calls, no room cleaning and no room service (pp. 37-43, tsn, In his brief, Accused-appellant offers explanatory facts and argues that the findings of fact of the
October 18, 1993). trial court are based mainly on the prosecution evidence displaying bias against Accused-
Appellant. He contends that the court made unwarranted and unfounded conclusions on the
When appellant left, the front desk receptionist, Enriqueta Patria, noticed him to be in a hurry, basis of self-contradictory and conflicting evidence.
perspiring and looking very scared (p. 32, tsn, September 22, 1993).
Accused-appellant, at the time of the commission of the crime, was a customer relations officer
During the whole morning of July 11, 1993, after appellant left the hotel until his return at 11 of Well Motors Company in Kowloon, Hongkong. He met Lam Po Chun at a party in 1991. Both
o’clock in the evening, he did not call his fiancee Lam Po Chun to verify her physical condition were sportsminded and after a short courtship, the two began to have a relationship, living
(p. 44 tsn, October 18, 1993, p. 18, tsn, November 23, 1993). together in the same apartment. The two toured China and Macao together in 1992. In April,
1993 the two decided to get married. In May 1993, they registered with the Hongkong Marriage
When appellant arrived at 11 o’clock p.m. on that day, he asked the receptionist for the key of Registry. The wedding was set for August 29, 1993.
his room. Then together with Fortunato Villa, the roomboy, proceeded to Room 210. When the
lock was opened and the door was pushed, Lam Po Chun was found dead lying face down on An office-mate of accused-appellant named Tessie "Amay" Ticar encouraged him and Lam Po
the bed covered with a blanket. Appellant removed the blanket and pretended to exclaim ‘My Chun to tour the Philippines in celebration of their engagement. After finishing the travel
God, she is dead’ but did not even embrace his fiancee. Instead, appellant asked the room boy arrangements, the two were given by Ticar the names (Toots, Monique, and Gwen) of her
to go down the hotel to inform the front desk, the security guard and other hotel employees to cousins in Manila and their telephone number. Photos of their Manila contacts were shown to
call the police (pp. 8-27, tsn, October 18, 1993). them. In addition to his Citibank credit card, Accused-appellant brought P24,000.00 secured at a
 Page 3 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
Hongkong money exchange and HK$4,000.00. Lam Po Chun had HK$3,000.00. to the hotel front desk and asked the hotel staff to open the door for him. The room was dark.
Accused-appellant put on the light switch. He wanted to give the roomboy who accompanied him
The two arrived in Manila on July 10, 1993 at about 5:40 P.M. on board Cathay Pacific Flight CX a P20 or P30 tip but his smallest bill was P100. He went to a side table to get some smaller
903. They arrived at Park Hotel around 7 P.M. From their hotel room, Accused-appellant called change. It was then when he noticed the disordered room, a glass case and wallet on the floor,
their contact, Gwen delos Santos, by telephone informing her of their arrival. The two ate outside and Lam Po Chun lying face down on one of the beds.
at McDonald’s restaurant
Accused-appellant tried to wake Lam Po Chun up by calling her name but when she did not
Accused-appellant woke up the following morning — Sunday, July 11, 1993 — at around 8 respond, he lifted up her face, moving her body sidewards. He saw blood. Shocked, he shouted
o’clock. After the usual amenities, including a shower, the two had breakfast in the hotel at the roomboy to call a doctor.
restaurant, then they went back to their room. At around 10 o’clock that same morning, Accused-
appellant received a phone call from the hotel staff telling him that their visitors had arrived. Several people rushed to Room 210. A foreigner looked at Lam Po Chun and said she was
dead. The foreigner placed his arms around accused-appellant who was slumped on the floor
He then went to the lobby ahead of Lam Po Chun, introduced himself to the delos Santos and motioned for him to leave the room. Accused-appellant refused, but he was made to move
sisters, Gwen and Monique, and their mother. A few minutes later, Lam Po Chun joined them. out and to go to the lobby, at which place, dazed and crying, he called up Gwen delos Santos to
Two bottles of perfume were given to the sisters as arrival gifts. inform her of what happened. Gwen could not believe what she heard, but she assured accused-
appellant that they were going to the hotel. Policemen then arrived.
Gwen delos Santos invited the couple to tour the city but Lam Po Chun decided to stay behind
as it was very hot and she had a headache. She excused herself and went up to her room, In the instant appeal, Accused-appellant, through his new counsel, former Justice Ramon C.
followed later by accused-appellant to get another bottle of perfume. Fernandez, assigns the following alleged errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Accused-appellant claims that before leaving, he instructed the clerk at the front desk to give I
Lam Po Chun some medicine for headache and, as much as possible, not to disturb her.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS
Accused-appellant, Gwen, Monique, and the sisters’ mother took a taxicab to Landmark ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT, WAS TORTURED AND WAS NOT INFORMED THAT HE
Department Store where they window shopped. Accused-appellant states that from a telephone HAD THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE ASSISTED BY INDEPENDENT AND
booth in the store, he called Lam Po Chun but no one answered his call. From Landmark where COMPETENT COUNSEL DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
they had lunch, the four went to Shoemart Department Store in Makati. Accused-appellant
bought a Giordano T-shirt at Landmark and chocolates at Shoemart. Gwen delos Santos II
brought the group to the house of her aunt, Edna Bayona, at Roces, Quezon City. From Roces
St., Gwen delos Santos brought the group to her home in Balut, Tondo. Using the delos Santos THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAD THE
telephone, Accused-appellant called his office in Hongkong. The PLDT receipt showed that the VICTIM APPLE INSURED AND LATER KILLED HER FOR THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS.
call was made at 6:44 P.M. on July 11, 1993. Accused-appellant claims that, afterwards, he
called up Lam Po Chun at their hotel room but the phone just kept on ringing with nobody III
answering it. The group had dinner at the delos Santos house in Tondo. After dinner, Gwen
delos Santos’ brother and sister-in-law arrived. They insisted in bringing their guest to a THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT COMMITTED A
restaurant near Manila Bay for coffee, but it was full so they proceeded to Tia Maria, a Mexican CRIME OF MURDER AGGRAVATED BY EVIDENT PREMEDITATION.
restaurant in Makati.
IV
Finally, the delos Santos family brought Andy Yip back to the Park Hotel, arriving there at around
10:30 PM. Before the delos Santos group left, there was an agreement that the following THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF OFFICER
morning accused-appellant and Lam Po Chun would join them in another city tour. ALEJANDRO YANQUILING, JR.

After accused-appellant’s knocks at the door of their room remained unanswered, he went back V
 Page 4 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
a cold-blooded crime but a well-planned one, including its timing up to the half hour. It is not the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE TESTIMONY OF CARISA DESTREZA WHO kind of crime that a man would commit against his wife-to-be unless a strong motive for it
INCURRED SERIOUS CONTRADICTIONS ON MATERIAL POINTS. existed.

VI The trial court would have been justified in finding that there was evident premeditation of
murder if the story is proved that Lam Po Chun insured herself for the amounts of US
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE TESTIMONIES OF THE OTHER $498,750.00 and US $249,375.00 naming accused-appellant as the beneficiary.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES THAT CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER ON MATERIAL POINTS.
There is, however, no evidence that the victim secured an insurance policy for a big amount in
VII US dollars and indicated accused-appellant as the beneficiary. The prosecution presented
Exhibit "X", a mere xerox copy of a document captioned "Proposal for Life Insurance" as proof of
the alleged insurance. It is not a certified copy, nor was the original first identified.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES OF
THE ACCUSED ARE INCREDIBLE. The authenticity of the document has thus not been duly established. Exhibit "X" was secured in
Hongkong when Lam Chi Keung, the brother of the victim, learned that his sister was murdered
VIII in Manila. It is not shown how and from whom the information about any alleged insurance
having been secured came. There is no signature indicating that the victim herself applied for the
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED insurance. There is no marking in Exhibit "X" of any entry which purports to be the victim’s
THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. signature. There is a signature of Apple Lam which is most unusual for an insurance application
because the victim’s name is Lam Po Chun. To be sure nobody insures himself or herself under
IX a nickname. The entries in the form are in block letters uniformly written by one hand. Below the
printed name "Lam Po Chun" are Chinese characters which presumably are the Chinese
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT COMPLETELY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED- translation of her name. Nobody was presented to identify the author of the "block" handwriting.
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. Neither the prosecution nor the trial court made any comparisons, such as the signature of Lam
Po Chun on her passport (Exh. "C"), with her purported signature or any other entry in the form.
(pp. 80-82, Rollo.)
It needs not much emphasis to say that an application form does not prove that insurance was
The trial court, in arriving at its conclusions, took the various facts presented by the prosecution, secured. Anybody can get an application form for insurance, fill it up at home before filing it with
tied them up together like parts of a jig-saw puzzle, and came up with a complete picture of the insurance company. In fact, the very first sentence of the form states that it merely "forms the
circumstantial evidence depicting not only the commission of the crime itself but also the motive basis of a contract between you and NZI Life." There was no contract yet.
behind it.
There is evidence in the record :that the family of Lam Po Chun did not like her relationship
Our review of the record, however, discloses that certain key elements, without which the picture with Accused-Appellant. After all the trouble that her brother went through to gather evidence to
of the crime would be faulty and unsound, are not based on reliable evidence. They appear to be pin down accused-appellant, the fact that all he could come up with is an unsigned insurance
mere surmises and assumptions rather than hard facts or well-grounded conclusions. application form shows there was no insurance money forthcoming for accused-appellant if Lam
Po Chun died. There is no proof that the insurance company approved the proposal, no proof
A key element in the web of circumstantial evidence is motive which the prosecution tried to that any premium payments were made, and no proof from the record of exhibits as to the date it
establish. Accused-appellant and Lam Po Chun were engaged to be married. They had toured was accomplished. It appearing that no insurance was issued to Lam Po Chun with accused-
China and Macao together. They were living together in one apartment. They were registered appellant as the beneficiary, the motive capitalized upon by the trial court vanishes. Thus, the
with the Hongkong Marriage Registry in May 1993. Marriage date was set for August 29, 1993. picture changes to one of the alleged perpetrator killing his fiancee under cold-blooded
This date was only a month and a half away from the date of death of Lam Po Chun. In the circumstances for nothing.
absence of direct evidence indubitably showing that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of
the killing, motive becomes important. The theory developed by the prosecution was not only of There are other suspicious circumstances about the insurance angle. Lam Po Chun was working
 Page 5 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
for the National Insurance Company. Why then should she insure her life with the New Zealand The prosecution alleges that at 10 A.M., Lam Po Chun was already dead. However, Gwen delos
Insurance Company? Lam’s monthly salary was only HK $5,000.00. The premiums for the Santos who never saw the couple before was categorical in declaring that she met both of them
insurance were HK $5,400.00 or US $702.00 per month. Why should Lam insure herself with the at the lobby before the group left for the tour (tsn, Feb. 14, 1994, p. 64; p. 20, RTC Decision; p.
monthly premiums exceeding her monthly salary? And why should any insurance company 150, Rollo), but Lam Po Chun asked to be excused because of a headache. In fact, delos
approve insurance, the premiums of which the supposed insured obviously can not afford to pay, Santos was able to identify Lam Po Chun from pictures shown during the trial. She could not
in the absence of any showing that somebody else is paying for said premiums. !t is not even have done this unless she really saw and met the victim at the hotel lobby at around 10 A.M. of
indicated whether or not there are rules in Hongkong allowing a big amount of insurance to be July 11, 1993.
secured where the beneficiary is not a spouse, a parent, a sibling, a child, or other close relative.
The prosecution introduced an expert in the person of Dr. Manuel Lagonera to establish the
Accused-appellant points out an apparent lapse of the trial court related to the matter of probable time of death. Dr. Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the PNP Western Police District,
insurance. At page 33 of the decision, the trial court stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library after extensive questioning on his qualifications as an expert witness, what he discovered as the
cause of death (strangulation), the contents of the deceased’s stomach, injuries sustained, and
Indeed, Yip Wai Ming testified that he met Andy Kwong in a restaurant in Hongkong and told Yip the condition of the cadaver, was asked to establish the time of death, to wit:chanrob1es virtual
and Lam Po Chun should be married and there must be an insurance for her life . . . (p. 33, RTC 1aw library
Decision; p. 66, Rollo.)
Q. If we use thirty six (36) hours to forty eight (48) hours, will you agree with me that it is possible
The source of the above finding is stated by the court as "tsn hearing Sept. 22, 1992." But that the victim was killed in the morning of July 10, 1993?
accused-appellant Yip Wai Ming did not testify on September 22, 1992. The entire 112 pages of
the testimony on that date came from SPO2 Yanquiling. The next hearing was on September 29, A. I cannot, I have no basis whether the victim was killed in he morning or in the afternoon.
1993. All the 100 pages of the testimony on that date came from Yanquiling. The next hearing on
October 13, 1993 resulted in 105 pages of testimony, also from Yanquiling. This Court is at a (tsn, Dec. 14, 1993, p. 31.)
complete loss as to the reason of the trial court sourcing its statement to accused-appellant’s
alleged testimony. Dr. Lagonera’s testimony on the number of assailants was similar. He had no basis for an
answer, thusly:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Lam Po Chun must have been unbelievably trusting or stupid to follow the alleged advice of
Andy Kwong. It is usually the man who insures himself with the wife or future wife as beneficiary ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
instead of the other way around.: Why should Lam Po Chun, with her relatively small salary
which is not even enough to pay for the monthly premiums, insure herself for such a big amount. Q. Would you be able to determine also based on your findings your autopsy whether the
This is another reason why doubts arise as to the truth of the insurance angle. assailants, the number of the assailants?

Another key factor which we believe was not satisfactorily established is the time of death. This WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
element is material because from 10 A.M. of July 11, 1993 up to the time the body was
discovered late that evening, Accused-appellant was in the company of Gwen delos Santos, her A. I have no basis, Sir.
sister Monique, and their mother, touring Metro Manila and going from place to place. This much
is established. ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

To go around this problem of accused-appellant being away from the scene of the crime during Q. You have no basis. And would it also have been possible, that there were more than one
the above mentioned hours, the prosecution introduced testimonial evidence as to the probable assailants?
time of death, always placing it within the narrow 45-minute period between 9:15 and 10 A.M. of
July 11, 1993, the time when Cariza Destresa, the occupant of the adjoining room, heard WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
banging sounds coming from the room of accused-appellant, and the time accused-appellant left
with his Filipino friends. A. It is possible also.
 Page 6 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q. All in front, meaning in terms of probability and based on your professional opinion, the attack
Q. It is possible also, who simultaneously inflicted the wounds of the victim? would have come from a frontal attack or the attacker would have come from behind to inflict the
frontal injuries of the victim?
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A. It is possible.
A. It can be the attack coming from behind in the front or both, sir.
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q. Based also on your autopsy report, were there signs that the victim put a struggle?
Q. But in your professional opinion or in your experience, based on the injuries sustained
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library including the location of the injuries on the body of the victim, would it be more probable that the
attack came from in front of the victim?
A. There were no injuries in the hand or forearms or upper arms of the victim. So, there were no
sign of struggle on the part of the victim. WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library A. Yes, it is possible, Sir.

Q. And your basis in saying that there was no struggle on the part of the victim was that there (tsn, Dec. 14, 1993, pp. 60-63.)
were no apparent or seen injuries in the hands of the victim?
Dr. Lagonera placed the probable time of death as July 10, 1993 (tsn, Dec. 14, 1993, p. 108). It
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library is undisputed that at around 8:30 A.M. of July 11, 1993 accused-appellant and Lam Po Chun
took breakfast together at the hotel restaurant. She could not have been killed on July 10, 1993.
A. Yes, sir. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Lagonera and the testimony of accused-appellant coincided
insofar as the food taken at breakfast is concerned. The couple ate eggs, bacon, and toasted
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library bread. But the doctor was insistent that the death occurred the previous day.

Q. But you did not examine the fingernails? Where a medico-legal expert of the police department could not, with any measure of
preciseness, fix the time of death, the police investigator was bold and daring enough to
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library establish it. Surprisingly, the trial court accepted this kind of evidence. SPO2 Alejandro
Yanquiling testified that he arrived at the Park Hotel at about 11 :25 o’clock on the evening of
A. No, I did not examine, Sir. July 11, 1993 to conduct the investigation of the crime. At the time, the victim showed signs of
rigor mortis, stiffening of the muscle joints, with liquid and blood oozing from the nose and
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library mouth. On the basis of his observations, he declared that the victim had been dead for 10 to 12
hours.
Q. Were there-also injuries at the back portion of the head of the victim?
The trial court stated that if the victim had been dead from 10 to 12 hours at 11 :35 o’clock in the
WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library evening, it is safe to conclude that she was killed between 9 and 10 o’clock on the morning of
July 11, 1993. The mathematics of the trial court is faulty. Twelve hours before 11:35 P.M. would
A. No injuries at-the back, all in front. be 11 :35 A.M.. Ten hours earlier would even be later — 1 :35 P.M.. Since accused-appellant
was unquestionably with Gwen delos Santos and her group touring and shopping in megamalls
ATTY. PASCUA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library between 10 A.M. and 11 :35 P.M., the assailant or assailants must have been other people who
 Page 7 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
were able to gain entry into the hotel room at that time. delos Santos family. Other people could have killed the victim.

The trial court stated that there was no sign of any forcible entry into the room, no broken locks, The trial court also relied heavily on the testimony of Cariza Destresa, a 19-year old cultural
windows, etc. The answer is simple. Somebody could have knocked on the door and Lam Po dancer occupying with her Australian boyfriend Peter Humphrey, the adjoining Room 211.
Chun could have opened it thinking they were hotel staff. Unfortunately, Detective Yanquiling Destresa testified that while she was in Room 211 at about 9:15 o’clock on the morning of July
was so sure of himself that after pinpointing accused-appellant as the culprit, he did not follow 11, 1993, she heard banging sounds in Room 210, as if somebody was being thrown, and there
any other leads. In the course of his interviews with witnesses, his purpose was simply to nail was stomping on the floor. The banging sounds lasted about thirty (30) minutes, an improbably
down one suspect. His investigation was angled towards pinning down Yip Wai Ming. In fact, long time to kill a woman. Destresa stated that she placed her ear near the wall and heard the
Gwen delos Santos testified that Yanquiling talked to her over the telephone almost daily urging cry of a woman having difficulty in breathing.
her to change her testimony.
The witness heard the banging sounds between 9:15 and 9:45 A.M. of July 11, 1993, not before
Officer Yanquiling testified on cross-examination that he did not apply any mode of scientific or after. The unreliability of Destresa’s memory as to dates and time is shown by the fact that
investigation. If a medico-legal expert of the same police department who conducted an autopsy when asked as to the date of her Australian boyfriend’s arrival in the Philippines, she stated,
had no basis for giving the probable time of death, the police officer who merely looked at the "July 29, 1993." Pressed by the prosecuting attorney if she was sure of said date, she changed
body and saw the blood oozing out of the victim’s nose and mouth must have simply guessed this to "July 16, 1993." Pressed further:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
such time, plucking it out of thin air. The trial court accepted the erroneous timing, conveniently
placing it where a finding of guilt would follow as a consequence. Q. Are you sure that he arrived in the Philippines on July 16, 1993?

Before a conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should A. I can’t exactly remember the date of the arrival of my boyfriend here in the Philippines
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to but one fair and reasonable conclusion, which because his coming was sudden, Sir.
points to the accused. to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person (U.S. v. Villos, 6 Phil.
510 [1906], People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692 [1942]). Every hypothesis consistent with innocence (tsn, Sept. 30, 1993, p. 10.)
must be excluded if guilt beyond reasonable doubt is based on circumstantial evidence (U.S. v.
Cajayon, 2 Phil. 570 [1903]; U.S. v. Tan Chian, 17 Phil. 209 [1910]; U.S. v. Levente, 18 Phil. 439 On July 16 and July 19, 1993 Lam Po Chun was already dead. If Peter Humphrey was still in
[1911]). All the evidence must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at Australia on July 11, 1993, how could he occupy with his girlfriend the next door room, Room
the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational 211, on that date at the Park Hotel. If Destresa cannot remember the date her Australian
hypothesis except that of guilt (People v. Andia, 2 SCRA 423 [1961]). boyfriend arrived, how could the trial court rely on her memory as to the 30-minute interval from
9:15 A.M. to 9:45 A.M. of July 11, 1993 when the alleged murder took place. Asked what time on
The tests as to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable July 13, 1993 she gave her sworn statement to the police, Destresa answered, "I am not sure,
doubt have not been met in the case at bar. may be it was in the early morning between 2 or 3 o’clock of that day, Sir." Destresa was asked
how she could be certain of July 13, 1993 as the date of her sworn statement. She answered
The chain of circumstances is not unbroken. The most vital circumstantial evidence in this case that this was the day her boyfriend left for Australia (tsn, Aug. 31, 1993, p. 29). In her testimony
is that which proves that accused-appellant killed the victim so he could gain from the insurance given on the same day, Destresa states that she stayed in Room 211 for 3 months. She later
proceeds on the life of the victim. Another vital circumstance is the time of death precisely changed her mind and said she stayed there only when Peter Humphrey was in the Philippines.
between 9:15 and 10 A.M. Both were not satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Where According to the witness, Peter left on May 29, 1993; arrived in June and July; left in June;
the weakest link in the chain of evidence is at the same time the most vital circumstance, there arrived in July; left on July 13, 1993. Destresa was confused and evasive not only as to dates,
can be no other alternative but to acquit the accused (People v. Magborang, 9 SCRA 108 but also as to her employment, stating at the start of her testimony that she was jobless, but later
[1963]). declaring that she was a dancer with the "Rampage" group and performed in Dubai.

Since the sentence of conviction is based on the crime having been committed within a short Destresa testified at one point that she heard an argument between a man and a woman in a
time frame, Accused-appellant cannot be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence if dialect she could not understand. This was supposed to be on the evening of July 11, 1993. At
doubts are entertained as to where he was at that particular time and reasonable conclusions that time, the victim had long been dead. Destresa gave various contradictory statements in her
can be had that other culprits could have entered the room after accused-appellant left with the August 30, 1993; August 31, 1993; and September 1, 1993 testimony. To our mind, the trial
 Page 8 of 8
Midterm 2nd Set – 10 PP v Yip Wai Ming
TOPIC: Offer and Acceptance / Consensual
court gravely erred in relying on her testimony. It is not enough to solve a crime. The truth is more important and justice must be rendered.

Accused-appellant was arrested on July 13, 1993, two days after the killing. There was no WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
warrant of arrest. Officer Yanquiling testified that there was no warrant and he arrested the appellant Yip Wai Ming is acquitted of the charge of murder on grounds of reasonable doubt and
accused-appellant based on “series of circumstantial evidence.” He had no personal knowledge his immediate release from custody is ordered unless he is being held on other legal grounds.
of Yip Wai Ming having committed the crime. Accused-appellant stated that five police officers at
the police station beat him up. They asked him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, SO ORDERED.
sat on his stomach, placed a handkerchief over his face, and poured water and beer over his
face. When he could no longer bear the pain, he admitted the crime charged, participated in a
re-enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement. All the while, he was not informed of his CASE DIGEST
right to remain silent nor did he have counsel of his choice to assist him in confessing the crime.

The custodial interrogation of accused-appellant was violative of Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution. The Constitution provides that" (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible against him." Section 17,
Article III provides: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Any
confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the right to silence and to counsel,
and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence (People v. Duero, 104
SCRA 379 [1981]).

This Court notes that accused-appellant did not file any complaint or charges against the police
officers who allegedly tortured him. But he was a foreign national, a tourist charged with a
serious crime, finding himself in strange surroundings. In Hongkong, there would have been
family members and friends who could have given him moral support. He would have known that
he was being questioned in his own country, being investigated under the laws of that country.
The degree of intimidation needed to coerce a person to confess to the commission of a crime
he did not commit would be much less if he is in a strange land. Accused-appellant states that
his lawyers told him not to file any charges against the policemen. He followed their advice,
obviously not wanting to get into more trouble.

This Court has carefully gone over the record of this case. We simply cannot state that the
circumstantial evidence is in its entirety credible and unbroken and that the finding of guilt
excludes any other possibility that the accused-appellant may be innocent.

Most of the circumstantial evidence in this case came from the investigation conducted by
Officer Alejandro Yanquiling or from the prodding by him of various witnesses. The desire of a
police officer to solve a high profile crime which could mean a promotion or additional medals
and commendations is admirable. However, an investigator must pursue various leads and
hypotheses instead of singlemindedly pursuing one suspect and limiting his investigation to that
one possibility. Excluding various other probabilities. The killing of a tourist is a blot on the peace
and order situation in the Philippines and must be solved. Still, concentrating on pinning down an
alien companion of the victim and not pursuing the possibilities that other persons could have
killed the victim for her money and valuables does not speak well of our crime detection system.