People v. Cortezano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Job Cortezano y Pajo was charged with Murder for the killing of Roderick Valentin. The prosecution alleged that on May 30, 1998, at around 7:00 PM, Roderick and his brother Jerny were on a banca fetching water when a gunshot rang out, hitting Roderick in the chest. The assailant then approached the banca, and both brothers identified the accused-appellant. Roderick asked why he was shot, and the accused-appellant fled. Roderick, on the way to the hospital, repeatedly stated that Cortezano shot him. He died that night. The barangay captain testified that Cortezano surrendered and admitted to the shooting, though Cortezano later claimed this was due to threats from the real assailant, Victor Pelicia. The medico-legal report indicated the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest, with the bullet entering the victim's back, suggesting the victim's back was turned to the assailant. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63, convicted Job Cortezano of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. The trial court gave credence to the eyewitness testimony of Jerny Valentin and the dying declaration of the victim, Roderick Valentin. It found the aggravating circumstance of treachery present and rejected the defense of alibi and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, assailing the credibility of the eyewitness identification, the admissibility and weight of the dying declaration, and the rejection of his alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the eyewitness identification of the accused-appellant by Jerny Valentin was credible. Whether the dying declaration of the victim, Roderick Valentin, was admissible and given proper weight. Whether the defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellant should have been given credence. Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been considered. Whether the awarded damages were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Job Cortezano for Murder with modification on the award of damages. The Court found sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, giving weight to the eyewitness testimony and the dying declaration. Treachery was confirmed as a qualifying circumstance. The award for moral damages was increased, and compensation for loss of earning capacity was awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of eyewitness identification: The Court found Jerny Valentin's identification of the accused-appellant credible. Despite the darkness, the Court noted that a flashlight beam, even at a distance of six meters, can provide sufficient illumination for identification, especially when the parties knew each other well as neighbors. The Court also stated that it is not contrary to human behavior for an assailant to approach the victim after a shooting, particularly in a deserted area where fear of identification is minimal. The Court further held that inconsistencies between sworn statements and court testimony do not necessarily discredit a witness, especially when the witness was not given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies and the sworn statement was in a language the witness did not fully understand. The Court emphasized that victims of violence often have a strong ability to recognize their attackers. On the admissibility and weight of the dying declaration: The Court upheld the admissibility and high credence given to Roderick Valentin's dying declaration. The victim's statements to his parents that Cortezano shot him, coupled with his expressions of pain and inability to bear it further, indicated his consciousness of impending death. The Court reasoned that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to fabricate accusations. The delay in reporting the assailant's identity to the police by the victim's father, Jimmy Valentin, was explained by his shock, grief, and fear for his family's safety, which are understandable reactions and do not necessarily impair credibility. The Court reiterated that dying declarations are evidence of the highest order and can also be considered part of the res gestae due to their spontaneous nature following a startling occurrence. On the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the accused-appellant's defense of alibi. The Court found that the alibi was not physically impossible to disprove, as the accused-appellant's house was less than a kilometer from the crime scene. Furthermore, the testimonies of the accused-appellant and his father regarding the events of the night, including the presence and actions of Victor Pelicia, contained material discrepancies. These inconsistencies, along with the conflicting accounts of the accused-appellant's state of sobriety and participation in a drinking session, weakened the alibi and suggested it was a fabrication. The Court noted that alibi is unavailing when there is positive identification and an ante-mortem declaration. On the aggravating circumstance of treachery: The Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim on a banca and the assailant on the shore, rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The means employed by the assailant ensured his safety from any defensive or retaliatory act by the victim. The location and severity of the wound, entering the victim's back, further supported the conclusion that the attack was sudden and deliberate, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: The Court agreed with the trial court's rejection of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. For surrender to be mitigating, it must be spontaneous and show an intent to submit unconditionally, either by acknowledging guilt or wishing to save authorities trouble. The accused-appellant claimed he surrendered due to threats from Victor Pelicia, not because he admitted guilt, and his defense was a denial of the crime. Therefore, his surrender was not voluntary in the sense required for mitigation. On the awarded damages: The Court modified the damages awarded. It increased the moral damages from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Additionally, the Court awarded P1,320,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, based on the victim's age and daily wage, applying the standard formula.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, holding that eyewitness identification, corroborated by a dying declaration, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also affirmed the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance and modified the award for moral damages and loss of earning capacity.