People v. Sia
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Nelson Sia, Jr. y Aculña was charged with Murder and Attempted Murder for the killing of Hector Iniaki Lontoc, Jr. and the shooting of Jerome Sumulong y Gapasin, respectively. The prosecution alleged that on December 2, 2015, at around 12:10 a.m., Hector and Jerome were flagged down by PO1 Eric O. Guzman and barangay tanods. While they were being questioned, accused-appellant suddenly emerged from behind PO1 Guzman and fired multiple shots, hitting Hector in the head and Jerome in the left forearm. Hector died instantaneously, while Jerome sustained a non-fatal injury. Accused-appellant was apprehended later at the hospital after being shot by PO1 Guzman during the incident. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 153, Taguig City, convicted accused-appellant of Murder and Attempted Murder, appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, reducing some of the awarded damages and adjusting the penalty for attempted murder. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution witnesses could not have identified him due to darkness, that the Informations lacked factual averments on treachery, that treachery was not proven, that treachery was negated by the presence of law enforcers, and that there was no intent to kill Jerome due to the minor nature of his injury.
Issue(s)
Whether the shooter could be identified by the prosecution witnesses at the locus criminis. Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of Murder and Attempted Murder even though the Informations did not contain factual averments on treachery. Whether the attack upon the victims was attended by treachery. Whether there was intent to kill when Jerome was fired at.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal for lack of merit but modified the award of damages in the attempted murder case. The Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for Murder and Attempted Murder, with treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The dispositive portion of the Court's decision is as follows: (1) In Criminal Case No. 158545-TG, accused-appellant Nelson Sia, Jr. y Aculña is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to PAY the heirs of Hector Iniaki Lontoc, Jr., Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 75,000.00) as moral damages, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 75,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (PHP 50,000.00) as temperate damages; and (2) In Criminal Case No. 158546-TG, accused-appellant Nelson Sia, Jr. y Aculña is found GUILTY of ATTEMPTED MURDER and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. He is ordered to PAY Jerome Sumulong, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 25,000.00) as civil indemnity, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 25,000.00) as moral damages, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 25,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Twenty Thousand Pesos (PHP 20,000.00) as temperate damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of identification of the assailant: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution witnesses could identify the accused-appellant because the scene of the crime was fairly lit by a street light. The Court reiterated that illumination from street lights is sufficient for visibility and identification. The argument that the area was dark because PO1 Guzman chased the accused-appellant into a "dark area" was dismissed, as this referred to a different location from where the shooting occurred. The credibility of the witnesses, including public officers, was upheld in the absence of proof of malice or ill motive. On the sufficiency of the Informations and waiver of objections: The Supreme Court ruled that accused-appellant waived any objection to the sufficiency of the Informations regarding the factual averments of treachery. This is because he failed to file a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars before entering his plea. The Court cited People v. Solar and People v. Lira, emphasizing that such objections, if not raised before arraignment, are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This procedural rule prevents undue delays and ensures that the accused is deemed to have understood the charges. On the presence of treachery: The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of treachery. It clarified that treachery requires the assailant to employ means that give the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and that these means were deliberately adopted. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Germina and People v. Nemeria, explaining that in those cases, the victims were aware of the impending attack, which is not true here. The presence of law enforcers does not negate treachery if the victim is deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. The sudden emergence of the accused-appellant from behind PO1 Guzman and the barrage of shots without warning established treachery, as it ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant from the victims' defense. The accused-appellant consciously adopted this mode of attack by hiding near a wall and positioning himself at a safe distance. On the intent to kill Jerome: The Supreme Court held that intent to kill was sufficiently established for the charge of Attempted Murder against Jerome. Intent to kill can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon (a gun) and the continuous firing of shots. The fact that Jerome sustained only a minor injury does not negate the intent to kill but merely indicates that the crime of Murder was not consummated due to causes other than the accused-appellant's spontaneous desistance. The Court also reiterated the principle of aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) or error in personae (mistake in the identity of the victim) under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, meaning intent to kill can still be appreciated even if the actual victim was not the intended one, or the injury was not as severe as intended.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for Murder and Attempted Murder, holding that treachery attended the commission of the crimes, and that any objection to the sufficiency of the Information was waived by the accused-appellant's failure to file a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars before entering his plea. The Court also modified the award of temperate damages in the attempted murder case.