View full case

PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO GAFFUD

FACTS:

The case involves the accused-appellant Bernardino Gaffud, Jr. who, along with two other John Does, was charged with double murder for the killing of Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador. The incident took place on May 10, 1994, at Sitio Biton, Barangay Wasid, Municipality of Nagtipunan, Province of Quirino, Philippines. The victims were killed when the house they were staying in was burned down while they were inside. An eyewitness identified the accused-appellant as one of the arsonists. After the preliminary investigation, charges were filed against the appellant and two John Does for double murder by means of fire. The trial proceeded, and the prosecution presented six witnesses, including the common-law wife of Manuel Salvador and mother of Analyn Salvador, and the investigating police officer. The evidence presented by the prosecution established that the appellant was seen in the vicinity of the burning house and was later found to have been involved in a dispute with Manuel Salvador.

In this case, the appellant, Bernardino Gaffud Jr., was charged with two counts of murder for the death of Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador. The victims were burned to death in their own house. The prosecution presented witnesses, including police officers who conducted the investigation and took photographs of the crime scene. Dr. Teodomiro Hufana's testimony was dispensed with due to the defense counsel's admission of the contents of his Autopsy Report, which revealed that the victims suffered burns and other injuries.

The defense presented the appellant himself, who denied the accusation and claimed that he was at home with his in-laws, Balbino Bravo and Rufina Bravo, during the time of the burning incident. The appellant testified that he and Balbino observed a blaze coming from the other side of the Cagayan River, but they did not pay much attention to it and went to sleep. The next morning, they learned about the burned bodies and went to the place of the incident to see the victims. Appellant's wife, Juanita Gaffud, and in-law, Balbino Bravo, corroborated his alibi. Juanita Gaffud also testified that she spoke to Dominga Salvador, the victim's relative, about settling the case.

The RTC found the appellant guilty of two counts of murder and sentenced him to death for each count. The court also ordered him to pay the legal heirs of the victims various amounts as death indemnities, moral damages, exemplary damages, and nominal damages. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals for automatic review. The appellant argued that the RTC erred in failing to rule on the existence of conspiracy and in convicting him without proof of his specific overt act constituting murder.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the failure to prove conspiracy among accused-appellant and his anonymous co-accused is fatal to the conviction.

  2. Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused-appellant of murder.

  3. Whether the accused-appellant should be liable for two (2) separate counts of murder or for the complex crime of double murder.

RULING:

  1. On the issue of conspiracy

    The Court held that the failure to discuss conspiracy among accused-appellant and his anonymous co-accused is not fatal to his conviction. The direct participation of the accused-appellant in the killing of the victims was established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution's evidence. Therefore, a finding of conspiracy is not necessary for the conviction.

  2. On the sufficiency of evidence

    The Court affirmed the finding of both the RTC and the CA that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The proven circumstances collectively pointed to the conclusion that the accused-appellant perpetrated the act resulting in the death of the victims.

  3. On the liability for murder counts

    The Court ruled that the single act of burning the house to kill both Manuel Salvador and Analyn Salvador constitutes the complex crime of double murder, not separate counts of murder. Applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant is to be punished for the most serious offense, which in this case would have been death but is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole due to the passage of Republic Act No. 9346.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Complex Crime Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period.

  2. Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inference is derived are proven, and the combination of all circumstances leads to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

  3. Conspiracy Direct participation in the crime can suffice for conviction even without proving conspiracy among co-accused.

  4. Applicability of Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance when it is specifically sought by the offender or when it facilitates the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture.