PEOPLE VS PABIONA

(GR. No. 145803, June 30, 2004)

FACTS:
Robert Pagayon was working under the accused when found dead. According
to the accused they saw Pagayon who was said fell down the well, which the
victim and the five accused working on inside Pabionas property, they found
them dead. Pabiona stated that they tried to resuscitate the victim and
summon his mother to let her know. Emma Pagayon, the victims sister-inlaw, insisted to have an autopsy reports and later found out that the victim
cause of death is Cardio respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of multiple traumatic injuries to the body.
Michael Pagayon, cousin of the victim, further testified that he saw the five
accused mauling unidentified person near the river, and he later said that
the unidentified person was Robert Pagayon.
The court rendered a decision convicting the five accused,Benjie Pabiona,
Roselo Basalatan, Antonio Silarca, and Roberto Metano guilty of crime of
murder beyond reasonable doubt. However, the accused file a notice of
appeal for relying only to circumstantial evidences and disregarded
appellants version of the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient circumstantial evidence and Pabiano and
other are liable of the crime of murder?
RULING:
No. The Court applies the principle of equipoise rule stated that facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will not justify a
conviction. In the case at bar, the evidences showed that it can also be an
accident, falling down and getting hit in the head with a hard object, may
cause blood clot and scalp hematoma. Under Section 4 of Rule 133 of the
Rules on Evidence provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if the following requisites are complied with: (1) there is more than
one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. However because of the
consistent version statements of the appellants and other circumstantial
evidence causing doubt to whether a crime has been committed or whether
the accused has committed it. Also the prosecution was unable to establish
motive of the appellants in committing such unlawful act, relying only in
suspicion that probably the accused perform the crime. Failed to suffice the

evidence and prove the guilt. Therefore, Pabiano and other are not liable for
the crime of murder.