People v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 19, 1997, Romeo B. Domingo was shot and killed in his home in Cabanatuan City. The prosecution presented Rommel Domingo, Romeo's ten-year-old son, as the eyewitness. Rommel testified that he saw the appellant, Joselito dela Cruz y Damaso, shoot his father with a handgun. Romeo, before he died, identified the appellant as his assailant to his wife Leonora and son Rommel. The appellant was apprehended by barangay tanods, and a homemade shotgun was recovered from a canal in a nearby mango farm. Procedural History: An Information for murder was filed against the appellant. Another Information was filed for violation of Republic Act No. 8294 (Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm). The cases were consolidated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, Branch 27, convicted the appellant of murder and sentenced him to death, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and actual damages. He was acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearm due to insufficiency of evidence. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The Petition: The appellant assailed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of Rommel Domingo, the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, and the finding of treachery. He contended that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Rommel Domingo, is credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the dying declarations of the deceased to his wife and son are admissible and sufficient to corroborate the eyewitness testimony. Whether treachery attended the commission of the crime, qualifying the offense to murder. Whether the appellant is guilty of murder and what the proper penalty and civil liabilities are.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for murder with modification. The penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua. The award for actual damages was deleted, but moral, temperate, and exemplary damages were awarded. The Court directed the appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as temperate damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Rommel Domingo's testimony: The Court found Rommel Domingo's testimony to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that Rommel had known the appellant for two years and had seen him frequently at their home. Despite Rommel's young age, his perception of truth was untarnished, and he had no ill motive to falsely accuse the appellant. The Court emphasized that the trial court's findings of fact, including the assessment of witness credibility, are accorded high respect. The ocular inspection conducted also supported Rommel's account of his proximity to the victim and the assailant, as well as the lighting conditions in the sala. The fact that Rommel pursued the appellant and saw him stumble provided a clear view for identification. The Court reiterated the principle that the presumption is that witnesses are not actuated by improper motive absent proof to the contrary. The appellant's alibi was deemed weak and unconvincing against the positive identification by Rommel. On the dying declarations: The Court held that even without the dying declarations of Romeo Domingo to his wife and son, Rommel's testimony, in tandem with other evidence, was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. However, the dying declarations themselves were consistent with Rommel's eyewitness account and corroborated the identification of the appellant as the assailant. The Court implicitly acknowledged the admissibility and weight of such declarations when made under the consciousness of an impending death, which was evident from Romeo's condition after being shot. On the presence of treachery: The Court agreed with the trial court that treachery attended the commission of the crime. The victim was watching television with his back towards the door, and the appellant was able to approach him stealthily from behind and fire the gun at close range. The victim was unarmed and did not expect the attack. This mode of attack, which insured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant arising from any defense the victim might have made, squarely fits the definition of treachery. The unexpected and sudden nature of the attack, without provocation, established this qualifying circumstance. On the proper penalty and civil liabilities: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. While the crime of murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, though found by the RTC, could not be appreciated because it was not alleged in the information as mandated by the rules. Therefore, in the absence of any other modifying circumstance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed, in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Regarding civil liabilities, the Court affirmed the P50,000 civil indemnity ex delicto. The award of actual damages was deleted for lack of documentary evidence. However, the heirs were awarded P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as temperate damages (in lieu of actual damages where proof was insufficient), and P25,000 as exemplary damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder qualified by treachery, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua and awarding civil indemnity, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages. The Court reiterated that the findings of fact of the trial court are accorded high respect and that alibi is a weak defense. The Court also clarified the award of damages in murder cases.