People v. Delfin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of 27 September 2000, Emilio Enriquez was shot and killed outside his home. The appellant, Rael Delfin, was suspected of the crime. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The information alleged the commission of the crime on "or about the 27th day of November 2000." The prosecution presented an eyewitness, Joan Cruz, who testified that she saw the appellant shoot Emilio. A PNP physician, Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, testified on the autopsy findings, stating Emilio died from two gunshot wounds. The defense presented the appellant's alibi, claiming he was fishing. However, a witness for the defense, Rene Villanueva, admitted that he and the appellant returned to Navotas City on September 27, 2000, the date of the incident, contradicting the appellant's alibi. The RTC found the appellant guilty of murder, appreciating treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, deleting consequential damages and awarding moral damages. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant assailed his conviction, arguing that the discrepancy between the date of the offense in the information (November 27, 2000) and the date established by evidence (September 27, 2000) violated his right to be informed of the charge and impaired his defense. He also questioned the credibility of his alibi and the appreciation of treachery.
Issue(s)
Whether the variance between the date of commission alleged in the information and the date established by evidence is fatal to the information. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi is credible and sufficient to warrant acquittal. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated by the courts below.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant for murder with modifications to the damages awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the variance in the date of commission: The Court held that a variance between the date of commission alleged in the information and the date established by evidence is not necessarily fatal, especially when the date is not a material element of the offense, as in murder. The Rules of Court allow for an approximate date. In this case, the discrepancy between November 27, 2000, and September 27, 2000, was not so great as to create a substantial doubt that both pertained to the same offense. The Court noted that supporting documents attached to the information already referred to the September 27, 2000 date, and the appellant did not object to the evidence presented. The Court considered the inaccurate allegation a mere clerical error, deemed supplanted by the evidence, and thus sustained the validity of the information. On the defense of alibi: The Court found the appellant's defense of alibi unavailing. The testimony of the eyewitness, Joan Cruz, was found to be clear, candid, straightforward, positive, and credible, directly identifying the appellant as the perpetrator. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and credible, is sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the alibi was weakened by the admission of the defense witness, Rene Villanueva, that he and the appellant had already returned to Navotas City on the date of the incident, making it physically possible for the appellant to have been at the locus criminis. The Court reiterated that for alibi to prosper, it must be proven that the accused was at another place and it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. On the appreciation of treachery: The Court found the appreciation of treachery fully justified by the evidence. The eyewitness account described the attack as sudden, unprovoked, unexpected, and deliberate. Emilio Enriquez was conversing on the phone and was in no position to defend himself, leaving him no opportunity to evade the gunshots or retaliate. The Court concluded that the manner of attack, which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the offender arising from any defense that the victim might have made, constituted treachery, qualifying the offense to murder.
Main Doctrine
A variance between the date of commission of the offense alleged in the information and the date established by evidence is not fatal to the prosecution, provided that the discrepancy is not so great as to create a substantial doubt that the information and the evidence pertain to the same offense, and the accused is not misled or prejudiced in his defense. In such cases, the erroneous allegation is deemed supplanted by the evidence presented during trial.