People v. Lozano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused Francisco Lozano and Ernesto Morales were charged with murder with multiple frustrated murder. The information alleged that on March 11, 1984, in Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, the accused, conspiring and confederating, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, assaulted Ernesto Gazmen, Sr., Dr. Loreto Damian, Luis Sumibcay, and Marcos Segui. Ernesto Gazmen, Sr. sustained mortal gunshot wounds resulting in his instantaneous death, while the others sustained gunshot wounds that would have been fatal but for timely medical attendance. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, found Francisco Lozano and Ernesto Morales guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals for murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Ernesto Gazmen, Sr. The charge for multiple frustrated murder was dismissed for lack of evidence. Vivencio Somera was discharged for lack of a prima facie case. Ernesto Morales was tried in absentia after evading court processes and remaining at large. The Petition: Francisco Lozano appealed the decision of the trial court, raising several assignments of error concerning jurisdiction, the finding of guilt for murder, the qualification of treachery, and the consideration of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case, considering the accused were members of the Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National Police. Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Francisco Lozano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. Whether the killing of the deceased was qualified by treachery. Whether nighttime was correctly considered an aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The appealed decision of the trial court dated August 18, 1989, is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity to the heir/heirs of the victim is reduced to P50,000.00. The conviction of Francisco Lozano for murder stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Lozano. The issue of jurisdiction was not raised in the trial court, and Lozano voluntarily submitted to its authority by appearing at the arraignment and pleading not guilty. Furthermore, the claim that he should be tried by a military court was dismissed, as there was no evidence that the offense was committed in the performance of his official duties. In fact, he was discharged from military service after the commission of the crime, leading to the case being filed in the civil court. On the issue of guilt and credibility of witnesses: The Court found no error in the trial court's finding of guilt against Lozano. The prosecution witnesses positively identified Lozano as one of the assailants. The place of the incident was well-lighted, negating any possibility of mistaken identity. The witnesses were not shown to have improper motives, thus their identification of Lozano should be given full faith and credit. The defense of alibi presented by Lozano was considered weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by eyewitnesses. The requisites for alibi, namely, that it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime, were not met, as even under the defense's theory, Lozano was allegedly just outside the cockpit. On the qualification of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the killing was qualified by treachery. The eyewitness testimony, corroborated by the autopsy report, indicated that the victim's back was towards the assailant when he was shot. This mode of attack, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might have made, constitutes treachery. The victim was standing and was shot successively from behind, preventing any possibility of defense. On the consideration of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance: The Court upheld the trial court's consideration of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. The incident occurred at 9:00 o'clock in the evening, and the prosecution established that the accused took advantage of the darkness to commit the crime. While the cockpit was lighted, the surrounding circumstances and the manner of the attack, which involved surprise and the absence of risk to the offenders, were facilitated by the cover of night. The Court noted that nighttime was not offset by any mitigating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution eyewitnesses, especially when the place of the incident was well-lighted. Furthermore, jurisdiction over the person is deemed acquired when the accused voluntarily submits to the court's authority, and the claim of trial by military court is unavailing if the offense was not committed in the performance of official duties.