View full case

PEOPLE v. JEFFREY LIGNES Y PAPILLERO

FACTS:

identified as the Child In Conflict with the Law (CICL). The barangay tanod searched the backpack carried by the CICL and found several items belonging to Laurora, including a laptop, cellphones, wallet, shoes, perfume, flashlight, ball pen, coin purse, screwdriver, and a backpack. The accused-appellant was also found to have a bloodied knife in his possession. Meanwhile, Villamor and Libo-on went inside Laurora's house and found him lying on the floor with multiple stab wounds. They immediately brought Laurora to the hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival. After the arrest, the accused-appellant and the CICL were brought to the police station for investigation. During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

The accused-appellant, Jeffrey Lignes, and a Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL) identified as CICL XXX, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The incident started when a certain Villamor saw Lignes and CICL XXX wearing black and green shirts, respectively, in a suspicious manner near a bath house. Villamor called the attention of Laurora's laundrywoman, Cora, to check on Laurora. When Cora returned, she informed Villamor that Laurora was killed. Cora also identified that the green shirt worn by CICL XXX belongs to Laurora.

Dr. Rhodney G. Rosario, who conducted the autopsy, found that Laurora's death was caused by multiple stab wounds. The two accused were later apprehended, and a Jansport backpack containing Laurora's personal items was recovered from their possession. Accused-appellant Lignes was found to have a screwdriver in his possession.

During the trial, both accused chose not to present any evidence. The trial court, based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, found Lignes and CICL XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide. Lignes was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, while CICL XXX, being a minor, was sentenced to prison mayor as minimum and reclusion temporal as maximum. They were also ordered to pay damages to the victim's heirs.

Lignes appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but his appeal was denied. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court, stating that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of Lignes and CICL XXX.

In the present appeal before the Supreme Court, Lignes raises issues regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the prosecution's evidence sufficiently proved that the accused committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

  2. Whether or not the lack of direct evidence weakens the prosecution's case.

  3. Whether the crime of Robbery with Homicide has been committed.

  4. Whether dwelling should be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime.

RULING:

  1. The appeal lacks merit. The court held that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established that the accused committed the crime of Robbery with Homicide. While there was no direct evidence to prove the accused's commission of the crime, circumstantial evidence was found to be sufficient to support a conviction. The lack of direct evidence does not mean that guilt cannot be proved by other means. Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. The court further emphasized that the circumstantial evidence proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the accused's guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution established an unbroken chain of events that pointed to the accused as the guilty person.

  2. The court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

  3. Dwelling should be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a. There is more than one circumstance;

b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. (Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court)

  • The standard for appreciating circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain of evidence which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person and excludes all other reasonable hypotheses of innocence. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused. (People v. Modesto)

  • The finding of guilt cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. Circumstantial evidence must be weaved together to conclude the commission of the crime.

  • Dwelling is aggravating when the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party without provocation, as it violates the sanctity of privacy accorded to human abode.