People v. Ascarraga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 13, 2003, during a flag-raising ceremony in front of the barangay hall of Barangay Pansol Proper, Quezon City, the victim, Rodrigo Borgonia, who was the barangay chief, was shot three times by an unidentified person. Another unidentified man fired indiscriminately to disperse the crowd. The victim sustained three gunshot wounds, one of which to the head, which was determined to be the fatal wound. Witnesses BSDO Abendano and Editha Dictado identified the appellant, Sherniel Ungriano Ascarraga, as one of the gunmen during a police lineup approximately twenty days after the incident. Procedural History: The appellant was charged with murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision with modification, awarding exemplary damages and imposing legal interest on all awards. The appellant filed the instant appeal. The Petition: The appellant questioned the credibility of witness Editha Dictado in identifying him, citing her poor eyesight and the circumstances under which she allegedly saw the assailant. He also challenged the police lineup procedure as suggestive and pointed out the lack of motive on his part for killing the victim.
Issue(s)
Whether the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses is credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. Whether the procedure employed in the police lineup was irregular and tainted the identification of the appellant. Whether the lack of motive on the part of the appellant negates his culpability for the crime of murder; and the presence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance, affecting the penalty and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The Court ruled that the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses, BSDO Abendano and Editha Dictado, was credible and sufficient to sustain his conviction. The Court held that any alleged irregularity in the out-of-court identification was cured by the subsequent positive identification in open court. The Court also reiterated that motive is not an element of murder and therefore immaterial to the conviction. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with modifications to the awards for moral and exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and positive identification: The Court held that the assessment of witness credibility is best left to the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, due to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. The fact that witness Dictado wore eyeglasses did not impair her identification of the appellant, as she was at close range. Furthermore, BSDO Abendano also positively identified the appellant from a distance of about a meter. The Court emphasized that positive identification by credible witnesses, who have no ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial. The Court cited People v. Berdin to support this principle. On the police lineup procedure: The Court found no reason to doubt the identification made during the police lineup. Even assuming arguendo that the out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity, the Court held that such defect was cured by the subsequent positive identification of the appellant in open court by the eyewitnesses. The Court cited People v. Rivera and People v. Timon to explain that a police lineup is not essential for identification, and an in-court identification can cure defects in an out-of-court identification. On the lack of motive, treachery, penalty, and damages: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that motive is generally immaterial because it is not an element of the crime of murder. Therefore, the appellant's alleged lack of motive does not affect his culpability. The Court cited People v. Babor for this established jurisprudence. The RTC appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance, noting that the victim was shot while walking to make announcements, and the attack was sudden and unexpected, with the victim being unaware of the impending harm. The CA affirmed this finding. The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction for murder, implicitly upheld the finding of treachery. The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower courts. The civil indemnity of ₱75,000.00 and actual damages of ₱75,000.00 were also affirmed. However, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, the Court increased the moral damages and exemplary damages to ₱75,000.00 each, and all awards were ordered to earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid, citing People v. Jugueta.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the assailant by credible witnesses, who have no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over the defense of alibi and denial. Furthermore, motive is generally immaterial as it is not an element of the crime of murder. Any irregularity in an out-of-court identification procedure is cured by a subsequent positive identification in court.