People v.

Gonzales
G.R. 80762, March 19, 1990

Facts:
• February 21, 1981
o At 9:00 in the evening, Bartolome Paja, the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla,
Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales.
o Augosto informed Paja that his wife killed their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada, and
would like to surrender to the authorities.
o With the knife still in his hand and Fausta with her dress still smeared with blood,
Paja immediately ordered his nephew to take the spouses to the police at the
Municipal Hall.
o The nephew then informed the police what happened.
o Patrolman Salvador Centeno and the Gonzales spouses went back to Barangay
Tipacla.
o Paja, Patrolman Centeno, and Augusto proceeded to the residence where the
killing allegedly occurred. There they saw the lifeless body of Lloyd Penacerrada
only in underwear, sprawled face down inside the bathroom.
o For an hour, Patrolman Centeno inspected the whole scene and started to make a
rough sketch of the immediate surroundings.
• February 22, 1981
o At 7:00 AM, Patrolman Centeno with the photographer went back to the scene.
o Fausta was brought back to the police sub-station.
o Further investigations were made. The autopsy of Lloyd Penacerrada stated that
the cause of death is massive hemorrhage due to multiple lacerated, stabbed,
incised and punctured wounds. He obtained 16 wounds which 5 of it were fatal.
• February 23, 1981
o Augusto surrendered to the police saying that he has been involved in the killing.
o An information for murder was filed by the Provincial Fiscal against the spouses.
• September 16, 1981 – Augusto and Fausta pleaded not guilty.
• Before the trial, Jose Huntoria claimed to witness the killing therefore, a reinvestigation
of the alleged killing was conducted, this time, presenting another accused, Custodio
Gonzales, Sr., Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida. All the accused
except Lanida pleaded not guilty.
• The prosecution’s case rested on Huntoria’s eyewitness account of the incident which he
said that he saw all the accused stabbing and hacking the victim and said that he clearly
recognized all the accused because of the bright moonlight. He claimed that he did not
immediately report to the police authorities what he witnessed for fear of his life.
• Trial Court – they believed the testimony of Huntoria
• Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court but found the penalty erroneous.

Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant Custodio Gonzales, Sr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Lloyd Penacerrada’s murder
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the DECISION of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. Costs de officio.

Ruling:
No. The appellant is not guilty of the crime of murder. To recollect, Huntoria testified that he
clearly saw the malefactors including the accused-appellant taking turns in stabbing the victim.
He saw it clearly because of the illuminating moonlight. But on cross-examination, Huntoria
admitted that he could not determine who among the six accused did the stabbing and/or the
hacking and what particular weapon was used by each of them.

It also bears stressing the there is nothing in the findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals
which would categorize the criminal liability of the appellant as a principal by direct
participation, principal by inducement, or principal by indispensable cooperation.

The elements of felonies are:

a.) There must be an act or omission
b.) The act or omission must be punishable under the RPC
c.) The act is performed or the omission incurred by deceit or fault
*Please see Article 3 & 4 in relation to this

The trial court and the Court of Appeals lacked basis and proof to make the appellant guilty of
the murder charge. Huntoria’s testimony was also flawed and tarnished by the fact that he only
came out to testify eight long months after the incident. If the silence of an allegedly witness for
several weeks renders doubtful, the more it should be for the one mute for eight months. There
was also no showing that he was threatened by anybody.

Therefore, the SC agreed that the guilt of the appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.