University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic
Case No. GR No. 104629

Case Name People v. Kinok

Ponente Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Digester Cruz

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Appeal
(Complaint/ Information)
Evidence in Question Eyewitness testimony
How was it raised to the SC? On appeal
Trial Court Decision convicted
Supreme Court Decisions convicted

RELEVANT FACTS

- The accused Kinok and Saligan were charged with the crime of murder of William
Aguipo (through conspiracy). They pleaded not guilty.
- Prosecution’s theory –
o After having dinner, Luz Aguipo with 4 of her children went upstairs in their
house while her husband (the victim) William went inside the store in the first
floor and slept there. 30 minutes later, Luz heard 2 persons calling out to buy
rice. She went down and saw the 2 accused, who were unable to buy the rice
since the spouses had no change. They asked if William can accompany them to
the stores owned by Minoza to buy corn grits
o 30 minutes after, William returned to their store and slept. Luz also went back
upstairs and listened to the radio and slept at midnight.
o At half past midnight, Luz was awakened by a muffled gunshots. She
immediately got up, looked over the window and saw the 2 accused both
holding guns which were pointed at where William was later found dead. She
was able to identify them because the moon and stars were shining brightly and
there was a pile of wood and bamboos which were burning around 8 meters
away from where the accused were.
o Mande, the 13 y/o nephew of the spouses, who was sleeping in the first floor
with the other child Rommel (on the other side of the wall of split bamboos from
where William was sleeping), was himself awakened by the noise. He looked at
the place where the horse and pigs were, he saw the 2 accused both holding
 University of the Philippines College of Law

firearms which were directed and poked at the wall of the store where William
was sleeping.
o Mande noticed that his clothes were wet. Thinking that the children upstairs
urinated, he went up and woke his Aunt. But it was blood coming from William.
o William had 2 wounds – one on the right side of the body and another on the left
wrist. Luz and Mande started crying. She warned him not to tell anyone because
the accused might retaliate.
o After William was buried, she went to the Police Station and executed a sworn
statement to support her complaint against the 2 accused.
o Neither of the accused took the witness stand. In their defense, only Canacan and
Solo testified.
- Canacan’s testimony: He was a resident and barangay councilman. He said that he
fetched water from a well that afternoon and while passing by the spouses’ place, he
heard some cries and being curious, he went to their house and saw the body of
William on the floor wrapped by a blanket wet with blood. He said that Luz shouted
“giwakgiwak, gitikitkit si William” (William was eaten by the witch). When he told her
that he must have been shot to death, she disagreed.
- Solo’s testimony: Corroborated Canacan’s testimony and said that she asked Mande
about his uncle’s condition, he answered that he was just trembling because he might
have had a nightmare.
- RTC – Found the accused guilty. They appealed.
o During the pendency of their appeal, Saligan died while confined at the National
Bilibid Prison so the appeal in relation to him is moot and academic.

ISSUE/S
1. WON the RTC erred in convicting the accused - NO
RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
1. WON the RTC - Mande was able to positively identify the accused through
erred in direct examination.
convicting the - Instead of controverting the testimonies and defending
accused – NO themselves, the accused merely chose to remain silent.
They relied solely on the testimonies of their barriomates
who claimed that Luz and Mande did not inform them of
the names of the perpetrators. 
- In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove
beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission of the
crime but to also establish with the same quantum of
 University of the Philippines College of Law

proof, the identity of the persons responsible. This burden

of proof does NOT shift to the defense but remain s in the
prosec ut ion throughout the trial. However, when the
prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of
proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the
court of the truth of the allegations in the information or
has established a prima facie case against the accused, the
burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it
incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet
and nullify, if not overthrow, that prima facie case. 
- The unexplainable silence of the accused in the midst of
the overwhelming evidence established by the prosecution
against them leads to no other conclusion than that they
are guilty as charged. 
- Regarding the delay in the reporting of Luz of the incident
of 16 days, the Court found that she was able to
satisfactorily explain it (trauma, barangay officials usually
“fix the cases” because they were afraid of people in the
mountains where Luz assumes that the accused will flee
to). 
- Mante’s credibility was also attacked in that he was the
nephew of Luz and the victim. But mere relationship by
itself does not give rise to the presumption of bias. In fact
it would even make the testimony more credible since it
would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in
vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other than the
real culprit. 

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals June 23, 2000 Decision and
December 6, 2000 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 54722 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SEPARATE OPINIONS