People v. Degamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cesario Degamo and Constante Degamo were charged with Murder for the killing of Tomas Mina on December 19, 1971. The information alleged conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Cesario Degamo pleaded guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Constante Degamo was initially found guilty of Murder by the trial court, then Homicide, and finally Murder by the Court of Appeals. The deceased, Tomas Mina, and Juan Degamo (father of the accused) were candidates for barrio captain. The killing occurred as Tomas Mina was proceeding to a barrio meeting. Procedural History: The trial court initially found Constante Degamo guilty of Murder, but later modified the judgment to Homicide. The Court of Appeals reversed this and found Constante Degamo guilty of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The defendant-appellant, Constante Degamo, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals, questioning his conviction for Murder.
Issue(s)
Whether Constante Degamo is guilty of Murder. Whether the killing was attended by treachery. Whether the defense of alibi or mistaken identity is tenable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals finding Constante Degamo guilty of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was increased to P30,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Constante Degamo is guilty of Murder: The Court found that the evidence established the guilt of Constante Degamo beyond reasonable doubt. His brother, Cesario Degamo, had admitted his intent to kill the victim and pleaded guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, Urbano Dato and Esteban Mina, who positively identified both Cesario and Constante Degamo as the perpetrators. Dato testified that he saw two persons firing guns at the victim and recognized them as the Degamo brothers, with Constante holding a gun. Esteban Mina testified that the two persons who pursued and shot his son (the victim) bumped into him and he recognized them as Cesario and Constante Degamo. The Court also considered Constante Degamo's flight from the scene of the crime as indicative of guilt, noting that a warrant for his arrest could not be served because he could not be located. On whether the killing was attended by treachery: The Court held that the killing was qualified by treachery. The facts showed that the accused armed themselves with guns and hid near a narrow pathway where they knew the victim would pass. They waited until the victim was only three meters away before firing. When the victim fled, they pursued him and continued firing until he fell. This mode of attack, which insured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants from any defense the victim might have put up, constitutes treachery. On whether the defense of alibi or mistaken identity is tenable: The Court rejected the defense's claim that it was Rosalino Degamo, not Constante, who accompanied Cesario. This claim was only made over a year after the arrest and after the prosecution had presented its witnesses. The Court found this excuse flimsy, especially since the accused had been investigated by the municipal court and had not made this disclosure earlier. The fact that Rosalino Degamo's whereabouts were unknown further made the defense's claim convenient and suspect. The positive identification by multiple witnesses, who knew the accused since birth and were at close range, outweighed the belated and unsubstantiated claim of mistaken identity.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for Murder, holding that the killing was qualified by treachery, and that the positive identification by witnesses and the appellant's flight were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.