.

immediately prior to the victims death has been considered as circumstantial

evidence for homicide.
PEOPLE vs. CHAVEZ 2. The number of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie strengthens an intention to kill and
G.R. No. 207950 / September 22, 2014 ensures his death.
FACTS. 3. Peamantes positive identification of Chavez as the person leaving Barbies house
When Peamante (witness) arrived home from work, around 2:45am, he saw a person that early morning of October 28, 2006.
wearing a black, long-sleeved shirt and black pants and holding something while leaving 4. The medico-legals testimony establishing Barbies time of death as 12 hours prior
the house/parlor of Elmer Duque aka Barbie (victim). to autopsy at 1:00 p.m., thus, narrowing the time of death to approximately 1:00
There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of Barbie, his favorite haircutter, so a.m. of the same day, October 28, 2006.
Peamante was able to see the face of Chavez (accused).
The following day, Barbie was found dead, due to stab wounds, in the parlor and the place DECISION.
was in disarray. Judgment by lower court is MODIFIED. Chavez is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
In a line-up to identify the person he saw leaving Barbies house/parlor that early morning separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE.
of October 28, 2006, Peamante immediately pointed to and identified Chavez and
thereafter executed his written statement.
Chavez was charged with robbery with homicide.
LC: Guilty as charged, based on circumstantial evidence.
CA: Affirmed.

ISSUE & RATIO.

Whether or not Chavez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
homicide. NO.
Robbery
What is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery with
homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offenders intent to take personal property
before the killing, regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out. In cases
when the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that
homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing the victim, no accused can be convicted
of robbery with homicide.
The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts do not satisfactorily
establish an original criminal design by Chavez to commit robbery.
At most, the intent to take personal property was mentioned by Chavezs mother in
her statement as follows: Na sinabi niya sa akin na wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si
Barbie kundi ay pagnakawan lamang. However, this statement is considered as hearsay, with
no evidentiary value, since Chavezs mother was never presented as a witness during trial to
testify on her statement.
An original criminal design to take personal property is also inconsistent with the
infliction of no less than 21 stab wounds in various parts of Barbies body. The sheer number
of stab wounds inflicted on Barbie makes it difficult to conclude an original criminal intent of
merely taking Barbies personal property.

Homicide All these circumstances taken together establish Chavezs guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of homicide:

1. The alibi of Chavez still places him at the scene of the crime that early morning of
October 28, 2006. This court has considered motive as one of the factors in
determining the presence of an intent to kill, and a confrontation with the victim