People v. Magdueño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 15, 1980, Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig was shot and killed while seated in the driver's seat of his jeep parked near his house. Three successive gunshots were heard, and the assailant, identified as Hermogenes Magdueño, approached from the left side, fired into the victim's body, and fled. The autopsy report indicated two fatal gunshot wounds to the neck and lumbar region. Procedural History: The amended information charged Hermogenes Magdueño and others with murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and aggravated by commission for price or reward and in contempt of or with insult to public authority. The Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City found Hermogenes Magdueño guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to death and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The other accused were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The Petition: Accused-appellant Hermogenes Magdueño appealed the decision, assigning as errors the conviction for murder and the admission of his extra-judicial confession.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused for murder. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the accused's extra-judicial confession and whether aggravating circumstances were properly considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant Hermogenes Magdueño guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and aggravated by the commission of the crime for a price or reward. The Court modified the decision by deleting the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in contempt of or with insult to public authority. The penalty of death was affirmed. The Court ordered the accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P130,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the conviction for murder: The Court found that the elements of murder were sufficiently established. The killing was qualified by treachery because the appellant deliberately adopted means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself, firing two successive shots at the defenseless victim while the latter was seated in his jeep. The fact that the appellant called out "Fiscal" before shooting did not negate treachery, as it was a tactic to ensure he was shooting the correct person and to prevent the victim from defending himself when he turned. The Court also found that the appellant was positively identified by three eyewitnesses who had a clear view of the incident in broad daylight. The presence of a scar on the appellant's temple, as described by one witness, further corroborated his identity. The defense of alibi was rejected due to the positive identification and the lack of impossibility for the appellant to be at the crime scene. On the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession and aggravating circumstances: The Court upheld the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, finding that the trial court did not err in admitting it. The appellant was properly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and he was assisted by a lawyer from the Citizens Legal Aid Office (CLAO) during the custodial investigation. The confession contained details about the planning of the killing, the reward to be received, and the scenario of the killing, which could not have been furnished by the investigators alone, indicating spontaneity and voluntariness. Furthermore, the confession was corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of an eyewitness and the appellant's presence in Palawan when he claimed to be in Manila. The Court affirmed the aggravating circumstance of commission of the crime for a price or reward, as evidenced by the appellant's extra-judicial confession and corroborating testimony. However, the Court deleted the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in contempt of or with insult to public authority. The Court clarified that this circumstance requires that the crime not be committed against public authority itself. Since the victim, Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig, was a public authority, the circumstance was not applicable. The Court noted that while recidivism was present, it was not alleged in the information and did not affect the determination of the penalty in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, and aggravated by the commission of the crime for a price or reward, finding that the elements of treachery were sufficiently established by the manner of the killing. The Court also upheld the admissibility of the accused's extra-judicial confession, finding that he was properly informed of his constitutional rights and assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in contempt of or with insult to public authority was deleted as the victim himself was a public authority.