People v. Bello
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Information charged appellant Victor Bello, along with William Lara, Abdul Saligan, and Rudy Lara, with murder for allegedly conspiring to kill Benjamin Lachica on June 19, 1985, in Barangay Pangle, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate. The prosecution alleged that the accused, confederating together, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, superiority of strength, and taking advantage of nighttime, attacked and shot Benjamin Lachica, causing his death. Procedural History: Appellant Victor Bello pleaded not guilty. Accused William Lara and Abdul Saligan died during the trial, and the case against them was dismissed. Rudy Lara was at large. On February 9, 1990, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Masbate, found appellant Victor Bello guilty of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The case against William Lara was dismissed due to his death. The other accused were acquitted as their guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Petition: Appellant Victor Bello appealed the decision of the trial court, claiming that the court erred in giving credence to the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in finding him guilty of murder.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of murder despite alleged inconsistencies and lack of evidence such as an autopsy report and the murder weapon.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding appellant Victor Bello guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The Court modified the indemnity for the death of the victim to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses: The Court held that testimonial discrepancies on minor details tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility, as they erase any suspicion of rehearsal. It would be more suspicious if the witnesses were able to describe the exact sequence of events with precision. Total recall or perfect symmetry in testimony is not required; as long as witnesses concur on material points, slight differences in recollection do not reflect on their veracity. In this case, both Wilfredo Espaldon and Josefa Lachica concurred on the material points that four shots were fired by the appellant and all shots hit the victim. The Court also found the appellant's reasoning regarding the assailant's vision being affected by the lamp light difficult to follow and unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Court noted that the victim was only one meter away from the appellant when the shots were fired, and all shots hit their mark, explaining why no stray bullets hit other family members. The Court also dismissed the appellant's assertion that Wilfredo should have known the kind of gun used, stating that a mere farmer is not expected to be an expert at firearms identification and that the caliber or make of the gun is not an element of the crime of murder. The Court reiterated that for conviction, it is enough that the prosecution establishes by proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and the accused is the author thereof, and the production of the weapon is not a condition sine qua non for conviction. On the alleged lack of evidence (autopsy report and murder weapon): The Court held that while the testimony of a medico-legal expert is preferred, it is not the only competent evidence to prove injuries and the fact of death; the testimony of a lay person is equally admissible regarding the fact of the victim's demise and the surrounding circumstances. The Court also stated that the production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition sine qua non for conviction, as the weapon may not have been recovered from the assailant. The Court found that the prosecution established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the appellant was the author thereof. The Court also found the defense of denial to be unavailing against the categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses, stating that between a categorical testimony with a ring of truth and a bare denial, the former generally prevails. The Court agreed with the trial court that the presence of treachery qualified the crime to murder, as the victim was shot from behind without risk to the assailants.
Main Doctrine
The presence of treachery qualifies the crime to murder when the victim is shot from behind without risk to the assailant. Testimonial discrepancies on minor details tend to strengthen credibility as they erase suspicion of rehearsal. The production of the weapon used is not a condition sine qua non for conviction.