People v. Amaca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 1, 1990, at around 7:00 PM, Wilson Vergara was shot. He was brought to the Guihulngan District Hospital where he was attended to by Dr. Edgar P. Pialago. The victim sustained two gunshot wounds at the back, causing multiple organ system failure, and died the following day. Before being transported to the hospital, Police Investigator Bernardo Mangubat inquired from the victim about the incident. The victim identified his assailant as CVO Amaca and Ogang, stating he did not know why he was shot and that he was about to die. The victim, identified as Nelson (sic) Vergara, affixed his thumbmark with his own blood on the written declaration in the presence of Wagner Cardenas. The accused, Edelciano Amaca, presented an alibi, claiming he was on duty with CAFGU from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM on the night of the incident. Procedural History: An Information was filed charging Edelciano Amaca and "John Doe" @ "Ogang" with murder qualified by evident premeditation, nighttime, and mutual help. Amaca was arrested on July 1, 1991, pleaded not guilty, and trial ensued. The Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Branch 45, convicted Amaca of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but made no pronouncement as to civil liability. The victim's mother, Segundina Vergara, and son-in-law, Jose Lapera, desisted from further prosecution, citing financial help from the accused and Segundina's consent to an amicable settlement. The Department of Justice found a prima facie case based on the victim's ante mortem statement despite the desistance. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of murder solely on the basis of the alleged dying declaration.
Issue(s)
Whether the victim's ante mortem statement is sufficient to identify the assailant and overcome the defense of alibi. Whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of murder qualified by treachery when treachery was not alleged in the Information. Whether civil indemnity should be awarded despite the victim's heirs' desistance and affidavit of settlement.
Ruling
The appeal is partially granted. Accused-appellant Edelciano Amaca is found guilty only of homicide, not murder. No civil indemnity is awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the ante mortem statement and the identification of the assailant: The Court held that the victim's ante mortem statement is sufficient to identify the assailant. A dying declaration is admissible because a person aware of impending death has no motive for falsehood. The elements of a dying declaration were met: the victim was conscious of his impending death, would have been a competent witness, the declaration concerned the cause and circumstances of his death, it was offered in a criminal case where his death was the subject, and it was complete. The Court rejected the argument that the victim could not have seen his assailant because he was shot in the back at night, noting that the victim did not lose consciousness and his statement clearly indicated he recognized his shooter. The Court also found no factual basis for the claim that the shooting occurred in pitch darkness, inferring it happened before 7:00 PM, allowing for sufficient daylight. The statement was also admissible as part of the res gestae, being spontaneous and made immediately after the startling occurrence, relating to its circumstances. The defense's attempt to question the genuineness of the statement due to potential bias of the police officer and the thumbmark authentication was unconvincing, as the officer was presumed to have performed his duty regularly, and the thumbmark in blood was understandable given the circumstances. The non-presentation of the witness to the statement was not fatal. On the conviction for murder versus homicide: The Court agreed with the defense that the appellant could only be held liable for homicide, not murder, because treachery was not alleged in the Information. The Information charged murder qualified only by evident premeditation. While the trial court found treachery, the Supreme Court cannot appreciate treachery to qualify the crime to murder as it was not alleged, violating the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court also found that treachery and nighttime could not be considered even as generic aggravating circumstances because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused consciously and purposely adopted means to render the victim defenseless or used darkness to facilitate the crime, as no witness saw the commencement or the actual assault. Therefore, the accused could only be held liable for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, leading to an indeterminate sentence of prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. On the non-award of civil indemnity: The Court affirmed the trial court's decision not to award civil indemnity. Although the law presumes the civil aspect is filed with the criminal prosecution, the victim's mother, Segundina Vergara, executed an affidavit of desistance. In this affidavit, she stated she found the death purely accidental, attributed it to the victim's fault, and decided to drop the case due to compassion for the accused and financial help received from his family. The Court noted that while the desistance of the mother does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, it operates as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Her claim of accident was deemed baseless, as gunshot wounds to the back cannot be self-inflicted. Therefore, by waiving her right to institute an action for civil liability, she also waived her right to be awarded any civil indemnity arising from the criminal prosecution. The Court also noted that no appeal was made by the heirs regarding the refusal to include civil liability.
Main Doctrine
An accused can only be convicted of the crime charged in the Information. If treachery is not alleged, the accused cannot be convicted of murder qualified by treachery, even if the evidence supports it. The victim's ante mortem statement, if meeting the requisites, is admissible as a dying declaration and/or part of the res gestae, sufficient to identify the assailant and overcome the defense of alibi. However, the heirs' waiver of civil indemnity through an affidavit of desistance, particularly when based on financial assistance, bars the award of civil indemnity.