I heard over DZMM the interview of State Prosecutor Emily Delos Santos who conducted the preliminary invesgation and filed the Murder charge against US Serviceman Joseph Scott Pemberton for the killing of the Filipino transgender, Jennifer Laude. At the pit of my stomach I feel it was Pemberton who killed Laude. However, how my, or the Judges, stomach strongly feels about the matter is entirely irrelevant in a criminal prosecution. The case will ultimately be decided on the basis of evidence that the prosecution can muster and present during trial that will establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was Pemberton who killed Laude. Putting our stomachs aside, what evidence did the prosecution consider in finding probable cause? According to the investigating State Prosecutor, it was the testimony of the Bellboy of the motel where the crime happened that Pemberton, Laude and another transgender, Barbie, had checked into that fateful night. The essence of the testimony of the Bellboy during the preliminary investigation was that Pemberton was last person seen with Laude before Laude was discovered dead. The investigating State Prosecutor then concluded that it must be Pemberton who killed Laude. In short, Pemberton is charged for the killing of Laude through circumstantial, not direct, evidence. Is evidence that Pemberton was the last person seen with Laude before Laude was discovered dead, by itself, sufficient to convict Pemberton? How may circumstantial evidence support a conviction? I find the following dissenting opinion of Justice Ynares-Santiago in People versus Cesar Galvez (G.R. No. 157221, March 30, 2007) appropos. It must be stressed, however, that direct evidence of the commission of the offense is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. [People v. Romua, 339 Phil. 198, 206 (1997)] Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 4] While no general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice in a given case, all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. [People v. Ludday, 61 Phil. 216, 221-222 (1935)] The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is the guilty person. [U.S. v. Villos, 6 Phil. 510, 512 (1906)] Judged against the foregoing yardstick, evidence that Pemberton was the last person seen with Laude before Laude was discovered dead, all by itself, is not sufficient to convict Pemberton.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:23:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015