Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: SPO4 Pablo dela Cruz (petitioner) was charged with homicide for the death of LTC Vicente Garabato, Jr. The Information was later amended to charge murder. The prosecution alleged that on June 16, 1993, petitioner confronted Garabato regarding the parking of his Ford Fiera, which blocked petitioner's driveway. An argument ensued, and petitioner allegedly shot Garabato multiple times with a gun. The victim sustained six gunshot wounds, four of which were fatal, and died on arrival at the hospital. The medico-legal officer concluded death was due to hemorrhage from multiple gunshot wounds. Petitioner fled but later surrendered to the police with his counsel and turned over his service firearms. Eyewitnesses Mario Mascardo and Abundio Tad-y Benito positively identified petitioner as the assailant. Petitioner interposed the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was at the Gagalangin Health Center in Tondo, Manila, with his wife and children at the time of the incident. A witness corroborated his alibi, and another witness claimed the assailant was not petitioner. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty of homicide, not murder, ruling that treachery was not sufficiently established. The RTC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for homicide but modified the penalty, holding that the RTC erred in appreciating voluntary surrender as it was not spontaneous and unconditional. The CA increased the penalty. The Petition: Petitioner sought reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the judge was biased against alibi, the evidence was fabricated, the judgment disregarded the rule that doubt should favor the accused, his defense evidence was convincing, and there was no basis for damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the defense of alibi and denial should have been given credence over the positive identification by eyewitnesses. Whether the statements made by bystanders at the scene of the crime constituted admissible res gestae. Whether the petitioner's surrender qualified as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Whether the award of actual damages and indemnity for death was proper. Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals requires modification under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of petitioner for homicide is affirmed, with a modification in the indeterminate penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt and the defense of alibi/denial: The Court reiterated the principle that the determination of the credibility of witnesses is primarily within the domain of the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great respect and even finality, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. The positive identification of the petitioner by two eyewitnesses, Mario Mascardo and Abundio Tad-y Benito, who were present at the scene of the crime, was given significant weight. The Court found that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated, and for it to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but also that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the scene of the crime. The distance between Sangandaan, Quezon City, and Tondo, Manila, did not preclude the petitioner's physical presence. The Court also noted that the fact that the eyewitnesses worked for the victim did not automatically render their testimonies incredible, as no ill motive was ascribed to them. The Court found scant consideration for the petitioner's defense of denial and alibi in light of the clear and positive identification by credible eyewitnesses. On the admissibility of bystander statements as res gestae: The Court affirmed the trial court's admission of the bystanders' statements to SPO3 Jesus Patriarca as part of the res gestae. The Court reasoned that the killing of Fr. Garabato in broad daylight was a startling occurrence. The statements, made by people at the scene shortly after the shooting, identified the assailant as "yun hong pulis na nakatira sa tapat" (that policeman living across), referring to the petitioner. These statements were made spontaneously, without opportunity for the declarants to deliberate or fabricate, and they concerned the identity of the assailant, a vital aspect of the startling occurrence. The Court also noted that even if the declaration were not considered res gestae, the positive identification by the eyewitnesses was sufficient. On the appreciation of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner's surrender did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance. To be appreciated, voluntary surrender must be spontaneous and unconditional, indicating an acknowledgment of guilt or a desire to spare the authorities the trouble of searching and capturing the accused. The Court found that the petitioner surrendered purportedly to clear his name, not to admit culpability or to facilitate his arrest. Therefore, his surrender was not spontaneous and unconditional in the legal sense required for mitigation. On the award of damages: The Court found the award of actual damages in the amount of P132,912.00 and indemnity for death of P50,000.00 to be proper. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. Article 2206 of the Civil Code mandates indemnification for death caused by a crime. The Court noted that the prosecution presented receipts for funeral and burial expenses, justifying the award of actual damages. The indemnity for death was in line with established jurisprudence. The award for attorney's fees was deleted by the CA, and this was not challenged by the heirs. On the penalty and modification: The Court affirmed the conviction for homicide. It noted a minor correction needed in the indeterminate penalty imposed by the CA, specifying that the upper limit should be the maximum term, not the medium term, as prescribed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty was thus set as six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the assailant by eyewitnesses, corroborated by other evidence, is sufficient to overcome the defense of alibi and denial. The elements of res gestae are met when statements are made spontaneously as a reaction to a startling occurrence, without opportunity for deliberation or fabrication. Voluntary surrender, to be mitigating, must be spontaneous and unconditional.