PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PERCIVAL “PERCY” GOMEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gomez

The Case

This is People versus Gomez, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Percival Gomez, known as Percy, a barangay official, for the killing of a sixteen-year-old boy on Christmas Eve. The trial court convicted him of homicide, and the case reaches the Supreme Court on appeal from that conviction. It matters for the reviewee because it gathers in one decision the elements of homicide, the weight of eyewitness identification against alibi, the treatment of inconsistencies between an affidavit and testimony in open court, and the correct application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law together with the proper awards of civil indemnity and damages.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with homicide before Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and the parties stipulated during pre-trial that he was the person charged in the case. After trial, the court rendered its decision in October 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposing a prison term of eight years and one day as minimum to ten years as maximum of prision mayor, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as moral damages, 40,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and the costs.

The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's failure to see that there was no real positive identification of the gun wielder, and its reliance on evidence that allegedly did not overcome the presumption of innocence. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the private prosecutor filed separate briefs praying for affirmance of the conviction.

Facts

At around 11:20 in the evening of December 24, 2007, the victim, Rafael Joseph Nino Esguerra, known as Kulet, together with King Andrew Zamora, Mark Joseph Cajandoc, known as Rambo, and several other boys, were walking home in Sta. Ana, Manila after hearing mass at the Sta. Ana Church. They stopped to buy cigarettes at a bakery at the corner of Tejeron and Garido Streets. King Andrew and another boy went ahead to a basketball court on Garido Street, and while waiting there King Andrew saw the accused, then a barangay official, standing along Sampaguita Street.

When their companions arrived, the group continued walking home, turning right to Liwayway Street. Suddenly a motorcycle driven by the accused came speeding from behind them. He alighted, pulled a gun, pointed it at the group, and fired. The boys ran. King Andrew hid behind a vehicle and heard the accused shout Kulet, followed by another shot. Peeping out, he saw the accused as the only person holding a gun. Mark Joseph, who was behind the victim, saw the accused aim and fire at the victim, who fell to the ground. Mark Joseph heard three shots and was himself hit at the back of his right leg.

The victim died that night. The autopsy showed the cause of death to be a gunshot wound to the head, entering at the back and exiting at the right eyebrow, with no powder burns, suggesting the gun was two feet or more away. The defense presented the accused as its sole witness, claiming that at the time of the killing he was attending a Christmas party in Malate, Manila.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of homicide despite his claim that there was no positive identification of the gun wielder and that the prosecution evidence was weak.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and between their testimonies and their affidavits, destroy their credibility.
• Whether or not the accused's alibi can prevail over the positive identification made by the eyewitnesses.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court, and the damages awarded, were correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

The penalty for the crime of homicide shall be reclusion temporal.

This fixes the penalty for homicide and anchors the Court's correction of the trial court's sentence.

Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the Court, provides:

In cases in which the penalty is composed of three periods, the penalty corresponding to the medium period shall be imposed when there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances.

This governs the maximum period of the indeterminate sentence, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of homicide were established: a person was killed; the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by parricide or infanticide. Both King Andrew and Mark Joseph positively identified the accused as the only person holding a gun during the shooting, and Mark Joseph himself saw the accused fire at the victim.

On the second issue, the Court found no real inconsistency. King Andrew clarified that the accused was riding the motorcycle when he approached, went down, and shot at them. Discrepancies between testimony in open court and an affidavit refer to peripheral matters and are not fatal, because sworn statements taken ex parte are generally inferior to testimony in open court, and honest inconsistencies only erase suspicion that the testimony was rehearsed.

On the third issue, the Court held that alibi cannot prevail over eyewitnesses' positive identification, and that for alibi to prosper the accused must show not only that he was elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene, which he failed to do.

On the fourth issue, the Court corrected the penalty. Since the information did not allege that the accused took advantage of his official position, no aggravating circumstance could be appreciated. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is taken from prision mayor, and the maximum from reclusion temporal in its medium period. The Court also modified the damages, awarding civil indemnity and moral damages of 75,000 pesos each, and deleting exemplary damages for absence of any aggravating circumstance.

Doctrine

• Homicide requires that a person was killed, that the accused killed him without justifying circumstance, that there was intent to kill which is presumed, and that the killing was not attended by the qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, or infanticide.
• Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by eyewitnesses; it prospers only upon clear and convincing proof of presence elsewhere and the physical impossibility of presence at the scene.
• Inconsistencies between an affidavit and testimony in open court, on peripheral matters, do not discredit a witness, since ex parte affidavits are incomplete and inferior to courtroom testimony.
• Under Article 249 the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal; with no modifying circumstance, the maximum is reclusion temporal in its medium period under Article 64, and the minimum is taken from prision mayor under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded to the heirs of a homicide victim; exemplary damages require an aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction for homicide but modified the penalty to eight years and one day of prision mayor medium as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum, and ordered the accused to pay the heirs 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and costs, deleting the exemplary damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that alibi cannot prevail over eyewitnesses' positive identification, and that the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249. Examiners use this case to test the Indeterminate Sentence Law computation and the correct damages in homicide.