FACTS:

Jose Espineli was charged with murder for the shooting death of Alberto Berbon. He pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded. The facts presented during the trial revealed that Berbon was shot in front of his house by unidentified individuals who fled the scene in a car. One witness, Romeo Reyes, claimed to have seen Espineli and another person board a red car armed with firearms on the day of the incident. Reyes later sought financial help from Berbon's widow, promising to provide information about her husband's death. Another witness, Rodolfo Dayao, stated that he sold his red car to three individuals. The autopsy conducted on Berbon indicated that he suffered multiple gunshot wounds consistent with the use of high-powered guns. Espineli did not present any evidence for his defense and instead filed a Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court found Espineli guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

In his appeal, Espineli argues that the Court of Appeals erred in admitting and considering the sworn statement of a witness who was not presented in court. He claims that this violated his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine his accusers. Espineli also argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient. The Office of the Solicitor General agrees with Espineli's arguments and recommends his acquittal, believing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.

ISSUES:

1. Whether circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial regarding the sworn statement of Reyes is hearsay evidence.

3. Whether the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial regarding the sworn statement of Reyes is admissible as evidence.

4. Whether the identification and recognition through photograph by Rodolfo is sufficient proof that the red car used in the killing was the same car sold by Rodolfo to Sotero.

5. Whether the circumstances of the shooting, the gunmen fleeing in a red car, the post-mortem examination, and the petitioner's escape from detention are sufficient to establish his guilt.

6. Whether the trial court's factual findings, assessment of witness credibility, and conclusions should be accorded deference.

7. Whether the crime committed by the petitioner should be categorized as homicide, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

8. Whether the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages are proper.

9. Whether the award for actual damages should be upheld.

10. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded itemized medical and burial expenses to the heirs of the deceased.

11. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not awarding damages for loss of earning capacity.

RULING:

1. Yes, circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only basis from which a court may draw its finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. The circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. In this case, the Court found that the circumstances formed an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the petitioner is the guilty person.

2. No, the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial regarding the sworn statement of Reyes is not hearsay evidence. While the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person is usually considered hearsay evidence, it is not hearsay if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made, and not to prove the truth of the statement. In this case, the testimony of NBI Agent Segunial was not presented to prove the truth of the statement made by Reyes, but to establish the fact that such a statement was made. Therefore, it is not hearsay evidence.

3. The testimony of NBI Agent Segunial regarding the sworn statement of Reyes is admissible as evidence. The purpose of presenting the testimony was to establish that Reyes made a sworn statement containing a certain narration of facts and not to prove the truth of the statement. The written statement itself is a notarized document and enjoys a presumption of authenticity.

4. The identification and recognition through photograph by Rodolfo of the red car as the same car he sold to Sotero is sufficient proof that it was the same car used in the killing.

5. The combination and cumulative effect of the established circumstances, such as the shooting, the gunmen fleeing in a red car, the post-mortem examination, and the petitioner's escape from detention, satisfied the requirement of proof to establish the petitioner's guilt.

6. The trial court's factual findings, credibility assessment, and conclusions should be accorded respect, especially since they were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

7. The petitioner is guilty of homicide, as the prosecution failed to prove the alleged attendant circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime. The proper penalty is an indeterminate prison term of ten years of prision mayor as the minimum and seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as the maximum.

8. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is proper, but the CA erred in failing to award moral damages. The heirs of the victim are entitled to an award of P50,000.00 for moral damages.

9. The award for actual damages should be upheld since the itemized medical and burial expenses were duly supported.

10. The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly awarded itemized medical and burial expenses to the heirs of the deceased. The awards were supported by receipts and other documentary evidence.

11. The trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in not awarding damages for loss of earning capacity. The testimony of the victim's spouse regarding the monthly salary of the deceased was not substantiated by documentary evidence. Therefore, damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded, except in cases where the victim was self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

PRINCIPLES:

• Circumstantial evidence can be relied upon to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• The circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent.

• Testimony regarding a statement made by another person may be admissible if the purpose is to establish the fact that the statement was made, and not to prove the truth of the statement. This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.

• Testimony regarding a sworn statement is admissible to establish that the statement was made, and the truth or falsity of the statement is immaterial.

• Notarized documents enjoy a presumption of authenticity and due execution, which must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

• The combination and cumulative effect of established circumstances can satisfy the requirement of proof to establish guilt.

• Factual findings, credibility assessments, and conclusions of the trial court are accorded respect, particularly when affirmed by the appellate court.

• Homicide is a crime that requires proofs of attendant circumstances, and the proper penalty is reclusion temporal if no aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.

• Civil indemnity and moral damages are mandatory in cases of murder or homicide, without the need for additional proof other than the fact of the victim's death.

• Actual damages awarded should be supported by evidence such as itemized medical and burial expenses.

• Itemized medical and burial expenses may be awarded to the heirs of a deceased person if duly supported by receipts and other documentary evidence.

• Damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded in the absence of documentary evidence, except in cases where the victim was self-employed or a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

• Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum may be imposed on all monetary awards for damages, starting from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.