People v. Dejillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 29, 1996, Aurelio Basalo, a 22-year-old Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Kagawad, was stabbed below his left rib in Barangay Bugang, San Miguel, Bohol, and later died. Initially, Romeo Puracan was identified by accused-appellant Gervacio Hoyle, Jr. in a sworn statement and was charged with homicide. However, Aurelio's mother, Germana Basalo, requested the filing of a murder complaint against Dante Dejillo and Gervacio Hoyle, Jr., along with Jonathan Sodio and Petronilo Dejillo, Sr., believing Romeo was not the culprit. The Provincial Prosecution Office filed an Information charging Dante and Gervacio with murder, alleging conspiracy, treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation, stemming from a grudge Dante had against Aurelio for testifying in a robbery case against Dante's brother. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52 of Talibon, Bohol, found Dante Dejillo and Gervacio Hoyle, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The RTC also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, increasing the temperate damages. Accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellants sought acquittal, arguing that the lower courts erred in giving credence to the alleged dying declaration of the victim, the eyewitness testimony of Romeo Puracan, and in disregarding the defense's evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Hamilcar regarding the victim's physical condition and the defense's version of events.
Issue(s)
Whether the dying declaration of the victim, Aurelio Basalo, identifying the accused-appellants as his assailants, is admissible and credible. Whether the eyewitness testimony of Romeo Puracan is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the defense of alibi interposed by accused-appellant Dante Dejillo is tenable. Whether the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was sufficiently established. Whether the damages awarded by the lower courts are proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Dante Dejillo and Gervacio "Dongkoy" Hoyle, Jr. for the crime of murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. The Court sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court also affirmed the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages, and additionally awarded exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility and credibility of the dying declaration: The Court held that Aurelio Basalo's dying declaration, identifying Dante Dejillo and Gervacio Hoyle, Jr. as his assailants, was admissible and credible as it met all four requisites for a dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule. The declaration concerned the crime and circumstances of his death, was made under consciousness of impending death (given the serious stab wound and death approximately 30 minutes later), the victim was competent to testify, and it was offered in a murder case where he was the victim. The Court found the testimonies of Florenda Dolera, Amelita Basalo, and Saul Curiba regarding the dying declaration to be clear, positive, and convincing, despite the defense's claims of delay in reporting and the victim's alleged inability to speak due to blood loss. The Court emphasized that the victim's statement, "I was stabbed by Dante while Dongkoy held me," directly identified the assailants and the actions taken by each. On the sufficiency of the eyewitness testimony of Romeo Puracan: The Court found Romeo Puracan's eyewitness testimony to be credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Puracan's detailed account of Gervacio holding Aurelio's arm while Dante stabbed him was consistent with the physical evidence, specifically the NBI exhumation report describing a clean-cut stab wound on the left side of the chest, and the absence of other contusions or abrasions on the victim's body, which would have been likely if the victim had struggled. The RTC found Puracan's narration more credible than Gervacio's conflicting account, as it "jibes with the testimony of Dr. Hamilcar as well as with the post mortem findings in the exhumation report." On the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the alibi of accused-appellant Dante Dejillo, deeming it the weakest defense. Dante claimed he went home at 2:00 a.m. and slept until 6:00 a.m. However, his house was only 200 meters from the crime scene, making his physical presence there possible. Furthermore, alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses, especially when the identity of the culprits has already been established through other means like dying declarations and eyewitness accounts. The Court found Dante's defense inherently weak and easily fabricated. On the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength: The Court sustained the RTC's finding that the qualifying circumstance of superior strength was established. This was evident in the accused-appellants using their combined strength and a bladed weapon to ensure the execution and success of the crime. The act of Gervacio holding Aurelio's arm while Dante stabbed him clearly demonstrated the use of superior strength to overcome any potential resistance from the unarmed victim. On the damages awarded: The Court affirmed the awards of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, noting that civil indemnity is mandatory upon conviction for murder, and moral damages are also mandatory without need for proof other than the death of the victim. The award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages was also affirmed, as the victim's family incurred pecuniary losses that could not be precisely proven. Additionally, the Court awarded ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, serving as an example for the public good.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength, holding that dying declarations and eyewitness testimonies, when credible and consistent with physical evidence, are sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even against the defense of alibi. The Court also clarified the award of damages.