### Facts:
On October 31, 1995, at around 9:00 PM at Sitio Laclac, Barangay San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan, Marcelo Valdez and his son, Labrador Valdez, were conversing under their nipa house while Labrador lay sideways on a carabao sled. Other family members were upstairs preparing to sleep. Suddenly, an assailant fired two consecutive gunshots from the western side of the house. The first shot hit Labrador’s left thumb and finger, while the second shot hit him near the left shoulder, mortally wounding him. The assailant fled immediately after firing. Marcelo called for help, and Labrador, severely wounded, managed to walk upstairs towards the kitchen. He identified Domingo Valdez y Dulay as his assailant before succumbing to his injuries.
The next day, Dr. Asuncion Tuvera conducted an autopsy on Labrador’s body, revealing:
– **External Findings:** A gunshot wound in the chest area and a wound on the liver.
– **Internal Findings:** A fractured rib and severe hemorrhage, leading to cardio-respiratory arrest.
Subsequently, Valdez y Dulay was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms. Valdez pleaded not guilty to both charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Anonas, Urdaneta, Pangasinan convicted him of murder, sentencing him to death, and illegal possession of firearms, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Domingo Valdez y Dulay appealed his conviction.
### Issues:
1. **Whether the prosecution proved Valdez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.**
2. **Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and nighttime should be appreciated in the murder charge.**
3. **Whether the trial court erred in not applying Republic Act No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, concerning the illegal possession of firearms.**
4. **Whether it was correct to convict Valdez of two separate offenses, namely, murder and illegal possession of firearms.**
5. **Whether the prosecution’s witnesses, especially Marcelo Valdez, provided credible testimonies pointing to Domingo Valdez y Dulay as the assailant.**
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court generally upheld Valdez’s conviction but made crucial modifications based on the issues raised:
1. **Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:**
The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s finding that Valdez was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. There were consistent and positive identifications of Valdez as the assailant by multiple witnesses, including the victim himself.
2. **Treachery and Aggravating Circumstances:**
The Court recognized the presence of treachery in the killing. The sudden and unexpected manner of the attack while the victim was lying down defenseless qualified the killing as murder. However, there was no sufficient evidence to support the presence of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, or nighttime. Thus, these additional aggravating circumstances were not considered.
3. **RA 8294 Application:**
The Supreme Court applied RA 8294 retroactively, finding that the illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm only served as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of murder. Hence, Valdez’s separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms was vacated and deemed as an aggravating circumstance for the murder charge.
4. **Separate Charges:**
Following the application of RA 8294, only one offense (murder) would be punished, with the use of an unlicensed firearm treated as an aggravating circumstance rather than a separate offense.
5. **Witness Credibility:**
The Supreme Court found the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses to be credible. Witnesses had consistently identified Valdez as the assailant both immediately after the shooting and during the trial, making Valdez’s alibi and denial insufficient to create reasonable doubt.
### Doctrine:
– **Retroactive Application of Penal Laws:** RA 8294, which amended PD 1866, holds that the illegal possession or use of an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder is considered an aggravating circumstance and not a separate crime. This ensures that penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.
– **Dying Declaration:** Statements made by the victim under the consciousness of impending death are admissible under the hearsay rule exception.
– **Treachery:** A sudden and unexpected attack on a defenseless victim renders the act as treacherous, qualifying the killing as murder.
### Class Notes:
1. **Murder (Article 248, RPC):**
– Elements: (1) That a person was killed; (2) That the accused killed him; (3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (4) That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
2. **Illegal Possession of Firearms (PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294):**
– The possession or use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a crime should be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
3. **Dying Declaration (Section 37, Rule 130, ROC):**
– A statement made by a dying person regarding the cause and circumstances of his death under the belief of impending death is admissible as evidence.
### Historical Background:
This case provides historical context regarding the harshness of penal laws in the Philippines during the 1990s, reflecting the strict implementation of the death penalty under RA 7659 (the Heinous Crime Law) and the effects of legislative changes such as RA 8294, which sought to refine the treatment of illegal possession of firearms in relation to other crimes. The decision highlights the dynamic nature of Philippine jurisprudence, reflecting legislative intent to balance punitive measures while ensuring accused persons’ rights.
Leave a Reply