People v. Visperas, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 23, 1999, at around 10:45 PM, Tito de Guzman was shot while walking along a pathway in Barangay Embarcadero, Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The prosecution alleged that Jacinto Cruz shot the victim with a long gun, and then appellant Tomas Visperas, Jr. shot the victim on the forehead at close range. Avelino Cablayan then checked if the victim was dead. The victim sustained gunshot wounds, including one on the forehead, which caused his death due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to massive brain injury. Procedural History: The accused, Tomas Visperas, Jr., Jacinto Cruz, and Avelino Cablayan, were charged with murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City found Tomas Visperas, Jr. guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while Jacinto Cruz and Avelino Cablayan were acquitted. The RTC based the conviction on the positive identification by the victim's widow, Elmadona de Guzman, and the investigation by PO2 Ferdinand de Asis. The defense of alibi was found to be not credible. The Petition: Tomas Visperas, Jr. appealed his conviction, arguing that the RTC erred in convicting him based on the widow's testimony, relying on hearsay evidence, and misinterpreting the physical evidence. He also argued that the trial court erred in its theories regarding the bullet trajectory and the absence of tattooing.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of the widow, Elmadona de Guzman, is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant. Whether the trial court erred in relying on hearsay testimony. Whether the trial court erred in its theories regarding the physical evidence and bullet trajectory. Whether the killing constituted murder or homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the RTC. The accused-appellant Tomas Visperas, Jr. was convicted of homicide, not murder. His sentence was modified to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The civil damages were also modified.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony: The Court affirmed that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction, even in a charge of murder. The Court found Elmadona de Guzman's testimony to be staunch, positive, and credible, repeatedly and unwaveringly identifying appellant as one of the perpetrators who shot her husband at close range. Despite cross-examination, her account remained consistent, and it was corroborated by the Post-mortem Report detailing the gunshot wounds, including the fatal head wound. The trial court's evaluation of her credibility was not found to be arbitrary or overlooking substantial facts. The Court also addressed the defense of denial and alibi, finding the appellant's alibi unconvincing and corroborated only by relatives. The Court further addressed alleged inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, finding them satisfactorily explained. On the issue of hearsay evidence: The Court agreed with the appellant that the RTC improperly relied on hearsay evidence, specifically the interviews conducted by PO2 de Asis with persons near the crime scene who identified appellant as one of the gunmen. These individuals were never presented in court, rendering their statements hearsay and lacking probative value. The Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be based on hearsay, even if no timely objection was raised, as it is not grounded on the witness's personal knowledge but on the knowledge of someone not subjected to cross-examination. On the physical evidence and theories: The Court clarified several points regarding the physical evidence. It sustained the appellant's contention that no deformed bullet or slug was presented in evidence. It also noted that the recovered item was a .30 caliber empty shell, fired from a carbine, not a pistol. The Court found that the distance of the firing (around four meters from the victim's bloodstains) meant that tattooing would not characterize the wounds, thus not contradicting the eyewitness testimony. While the theories of the appellant and the trial court regarding the bullet's trajectory were not entirely clear, the Court remained certain that the victim was shot on the head and that the appellant was positively identified as the one who fired the fatal shot at close range. On the qualifying circumstance for murder: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any qualifying circumstance alleged in the Information (treachery and evident premeditation) with the required certainty. It is settled that a qualifying circumstance must be proven with equal certainty as the crime itself. Therefore, without a proven qualifying circumstance, the killing constituted homicide only, not murder. The penalty for homicide, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, is reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Main Doctrine
The credible and positive testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. However, without any proven qualifying circumstance, a killing constitutes homicide only, not murder. Hearsay evidence, even if not objected to, cannot form the basis of a conviction.