People v. Apa-Ap, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Eutiquio Apa-Ap, Jr. and one Alias Benie were charged with murder for allegedly conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other to kill Ciriaco Diacor on September 26, 1987, at about 11:30 p.m., in barangay Balwarte, Municipality of Buenavista, Province of Bohol. The Information alleged that the accused, by hiding under a cart, suddenly attacked the victim without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, inflicting multiple mortal wounds with sharp bladed instruments, which directly caused the victim's death. The prosecution alleged that the crime was committed with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, with nighttime being purposely sought or taken advantage of. Procedural History: After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant Eutiquio Apa-Ap, Jr. guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, with accessories of the law, and to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity and P5,000.00 for funeral expenses. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, contending that the court erred in admitting the dying declaration of the victim for non-compliance with essential requisites and in not appreciating the defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the dying declaration of the victim was admissible in evidence. Whether the defense of alibi should have been appreciated. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, thus elevating the crime to murder.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime to homicide. The Court ruled that the dying declaration was admissible and that the defense of alibi was weak and unconvailing. However, it found that treachery was not sufficiently proven, thus reducing the crime from murder to homicide.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the dying declaration: The Court held that the dying declaration of Ciriaco Diacor was admissible as it met all the requisites: (1) it concerned the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (2) the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death, evidenced by the fatal wounds and his death shortly thereafter, and further corroborated by his thumbprint on the declaration made with his own blood; (3) the declarant was competent as a witness, as he answered well when interrogated and was not suffering from any mental disease; and (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case where the declarant's death was the subject of inquiry. The Court cited People vs. Clamor, People vs. Obngayan, and People vs. Briosco in support of these requisites and their application. On the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the defense of alibi, characterizing it as a weak defense that is easy to fabricate. It emphasized that for alibi to be appreciated, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present at the place of the crime. In this case, the accused claimed to be working in Tubigon, Bohol, while the crime occurred in Buenavista, Bohol, a distance of approximately 30 kilometers. The Court noted that this distance could easily be negotiated with motorized transport, making physical impossibility of presence unlikely. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the doctrine that alibi cannot prevail over positive and clear identification of the accused by the victim, especially when the victim, at the point of death, has no motive for falsehood. The Court found no reason to deviate from the trial court's rejection of the alibi. The Court cited People vs. Ragas, People vs. Cruz, People vs. Adriano, People vs. Jimenez, People vs. Catubig, People vs. Rendoque, and People vs. Artieda. On the presence of treachery: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the qualifying circumstance of treachery should not be appreciated. It held that treachery cannot be presumed and must be proven positively. The Information alleged that the accused hid under a cart and suddenly attacked the victim, but there was an absolute paucity of evidence to establish the mode of attack or its inception. Without particulars as to how the aggression began and developed, it could not be established from mere supposition that the killing was perpetrated by treachery. Therefore, the Court concluded that the crime committed was homicide, not murder, as the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven.
Main Doctrine
Treachery cannot be appreciated in the absence of evidence of the mode of attack; it cannot be presumed but must be proven positively. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, it can in no way be established from mere supposition that the killing was perpetrated by treachery. The crime committed is homicide, not murder, if treachery is not proven.