FACTS:

The case involves Johnny M. Quizon, who was found guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. The case was built on the testimony of several witnesses who provided details about the events leading up to the robbery and the discovery of the victim's body. The body of the victim showed signs of discoloration, contusion, and abrasions.

Dr. Catherine Mejia conducted an autopsy on the body and found no abnormalities. The vital organs were sent for further examination, and it was concluded that the victim could have died from cardiac arrest, asphyxiation, or ingestion of a poisonous substance.

SPO2 Danilo Cruz interviewed a mailman who mentioned that he went to the victim's office to deliver mail but no one answered the door. Johnny Quizon, the accused, was arrested at his house a week after the victim's burial. The defense argued that Johnny had visited the victim's office on the day of the murder but left when his aunt told him she had other things to attend to.

The trial court found Johnny guilty based on circumstantial evidence. It noted that the victim had contusions and abrasions, and Johnny was seen at the office with the victim and two other individuals, and he left before the others. The court concluded that there was enough circumstantial evidence to support Johnny's conviction.

Several witnesses testified to the events surrounding the crime. Rowena Abril heard loud noises coming from the victim's office and saw Johnny hurriedly leaving the office. Myla Miclat and others also noticed that no one answered the office door during different times. The body of the victim was brought to Johnny's house, but he did not show up during the wake and burial. Instead of assisting the police, Johnny immediately went into hiding.

The prosecution argued that these circumstances create an unbroken chain of evidence pointing to Johnny as the perpetrator of the crime. The trial court agreed and found Johnny guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Johnny appealed his conviction, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Solicitor General submitted a motion stating that the circumstantial evidence was not satisfactorily established and that Johnny should be acquitted.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecution witness was sufficient to establish that the accused-appellant was the last person seen with the victim.

3. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented in the case inexorably leads to the fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all others.

4. Whether the accused should be acquitted if the evidence admits of other conclusions.

5. Whether the trial court erred in considering the appellant's flight as an indication of guilt.

6. Whether the trial court erred in considering the appellant's failure to attend the funeral rites as a sign of guilt.

7. Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's guilt.

8. Whether the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person.

9. Whether appellant's presence at the locus criminis is adequate to implicate him in the commission of the crime.

10. Whether the failure to find Conchita's jewelry and money, as well as appellant not attending her wake, is an indication of flight or guilt.

11. Whether the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the accused-appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide. The testimony of the prosecution witness, who claimed that the accused-appellant was the last person seen with the victim, was not enough to establish his guilt. The witness herself admitted that she did not see whether other persons entered the office after they left, and another witness testified that at least two persons entered the office after the accused-appellant left. Therefore, there was a possibility that other persons could have been involved in the crime.

2. The accused should be acquitted if the proven circumstances admit of other conclusions and do not inexorably lead to the fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all others. Only if the judge can arrive at a conclusion that the crime has been committed precisely by the person on trial, under an exacting test, should the sentence be one of conviction. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason and moral certainty must be established.

3. The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Solicitor General and acquits the appellant. The trial court erred in considering the appellant's flight and failure to attend the funeral as indicators of guilt. There was also insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances recited by the trial court were insufficient to create a moral certainty that appellant was the one responsible for the commission of the crime. The Court found that appellant's mere presence at the locus criminis was inadequate to implicate him, as there was no evidence that he was the last person to see or talk to the victim before she was killed. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to show that appellant had the victim's jewelry and money, or that he had them in his possession after her death. The Court further observed that appellant not attending the victim's wake is not indicative of flight or guilt, given the warning he received from a relative. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that suspicion is not enough to warrant conviction, and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Circumstantial evidence must meet the requirements necessary for conviction.

• The testimony of a witness must be consistent and credible to establish guilt.

• The absence of direct evidence does not automatically prove the guilt of the accused.

• Reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

• A person may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances should inexorably lead to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person, to the exclusion of all others.

• Where the evidence admits of other conclusions, the accused must be acquitted.

• Every circumstance favoring the accused's innocence must be duly taken into account.

• The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.

• Moral certainty is required in order to convict the accused.

• The constitutional presumption of innocence must be observed, and a person cannot be held liable for the killing unless all the proven circumstances point to his guilt.

• The accused must be presumed innocent and evidence must be interpreted in a manner consistent with their innocence.

• Flight, when adequately explained, cannot be attributed to an accused's consciousness of guilt.

• Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person.

• Mere presence at the locus criminis is insufficient to implicate an accused in the commission of a crime.

• Failure to find certain items or the accused's absence at a wake does not necessarily indicate flight or guilt.

• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.