People v. Bernardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Roberto Bernardo was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659. The Information alleged that on May 25, 2001, in Solana, Cagayan, accused-appellant, armed with a gun, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, shot Roger Arquero, causing his death. The special aggravating circumstance of using an unlicensed firearm was also alleged. Procedural History: Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity, temperate damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant claimed that the physical evidence was inconsistent with the prosecution's version, pointing to the victim sustaining nine (9) gunshot wounds, contrary to the testimony of hearing only one gunshot.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for murder, encompassing the sufficiency of the Information. Whether the qualifying circumstances of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm were sufficiently proven. Whether the penalties and damages imposed were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Roberto Bernardo y Fernandez for murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court modified the monetary awards for damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the Information and the elements of murder and the prosecution's evidence: The Court held that while the Information merely alleged "with evident premeditation and treachery" without supporting factual averments, the accused-appellant waived his right to question this defect by failing to file a motion for a bill of particulars or a motion to quash before arraignment. The Court cited People v. Valdez and People v. Solar, emphasizing that failure to avail of these procedural remedies constitutes a waiver, allowing the circumstances to be appreciated if proven during trial. The State was also deprived of the opportunity to amend the Information. The Court found that the elements of murder were established. It affirmed that accused-appellant shot Arquero to death, citing the positive identification by Rolando Licupa and the victim's dying declaration to his wife, Mercilyn Arquero. The Court reiterated that a dying declaration is evidence of the highest order, provided it meets the requisites of admissibility: (1) it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of death; (2) the declarant was under the consciousness of impending death; (3) the declarant was competent as a witness; and (4) it is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is the victim. All these requisites were found to be present in Arquero's statement. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm: The Court ruled that treachery was sufficiently proven. Treachery is defined as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court found that accused-appellant hid behind a hilly portion of the ricefield and suddenly fired at Arquero, who was walking along the rice paddy, thus depriving him of any chance to defend himself and ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the offender. This aligns with the definition of treachery under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the RPC. The Court found the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm correctly appreciated. Under RA 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder is an aggravating circumstance. The prosecution established the existence of the firearm through Licupa's testimony about the homemade shotgun and the fact that accused-appellant lacked a license, as evidenced by a Certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division. The Court noted that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony even without its presentation. On penalties and damages: The Court upheld the conviction for murder. While the presence of the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm would ordinarily warrant the death penalty under Article 248 of the RPC, the enactment of RA 9346 reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court modified the monetary awards for damages, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to Php100,000.00 each, and maintaining temperate damages at Php50,000.00, in line with recent jurisprudence like People v. Jugueta.
Main Doctrine
The failure to timely assail the sufficiency of an Information regarding the factual allegations of qualifying or aggravating circumstances constitutes a waiver of the right to question such defect, allowing the circumstance to be appreciated if proven during trial. A dying declaration, when meeting the requisites of admissibility, is evidence of the highest order.