PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PO3 VICTOR HERNANDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Hernandez

The Case

This is People versus Hernandez, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Police Officer Three Victor Hernandez, a member of the Philippine National Police assigned at the Peñablanca Police Station in Cagayan, for the killing of Nardito Ranay. The charge was homicide under the Revised Penal Code, and the accusation was that the accused, with intent to kill, shot the victim with a firearm on the night of June 8, 1999. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the rules on the elements of homicide, the weight of eyewitness identification, the treatment of delay in naming an assailant, and the settled weakness of denial, alibi, and a negative paraffin test against positive testimony.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by Information dated February 2, 2000 before the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 2. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. On December 1, 2011, the trial court rendered its decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as life indemnity. From that decision the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the identification.

Facts

On the evening of June 8, 1999, Rosmar Dalumay, Joseph Malana, and the victim Nardito Ranay were having a drinking session at the porch of Dalumay's house in Agugaddan, Peñablanca, Cagayan. At around eight thirty in the evening, after the session, the victim proceeded to go home. Dalumay and Malana were cleaning up the table when they heard a gun report. Malana saw the accused fire the gun toward the victim's chest, and the victim fell. Dalumay turned toward the victim's direction and also saw the accused. When the two ran toward the victim, the accused fled in the direction of the irrigation canal.

They reported the incident to the barangay captain, and a police investigator, SPO3 Eriberto Molina, proceeded to the scene. Asked about the identity of the assailant, Dalumay and Malana did not reveal it out of fear, since the accused was himself a policeman in their town. Only on June 14, 1999, five days after the shooting, did they execute sworn statements before SPO1 Vicente Montenegro identifying the accused as the assailant. The cause of death, as stipulated by both sides, was hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound.

For his part, the accused claimed that on June 9, 1999 he was at the People's Emergency Hospital attending to his confined wife, and that he stayed with her until her discharge on June 11, 1999. He underwent a paraffin test which yielded a negative result. He denied the charge and claimed that the case was filed to destroy his name because he had earlier confiscated forest lumber from Dalumay and Malana. He also invoked the dismissal of an administrative case for grave misconduct arising from the same incident.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of homicide.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the identification of the accused by Dalumay and Malana despite their delay in naming him.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi, the negative paraffin test, and the dismissal of the administrative case can overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the penalty and the civil liability were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, under which the accused was charged and convicted, provides:

Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the provision the Court applied in affirming the conviction and in fixing the indeterminate penalty within the range of reclusion temporal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of homicide were duly established: that a person was killed, that the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance, that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed, and that the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by parricide or infanticide. The post-mortem examination showed two gunshot wounds, and the intent to kill was deduced from the fact that death resulted from the unlawful act.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the identification was worthy of full faith and credit. Malana testified that the accused was about one meter away from the victim when he shot him on the left breast with a revolver, and that the place was illuminated by an electric light bulb. Dalumay corroborated him. The Court laid down the rule that where the prosecution eyewitness was familiar with both the victim and the accused, where the place of the crime afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witness, his version deserves much weight. The Court also held that delay in making a criminal accusation will not necessarily impair credibility if satisfactorily explained, and here the witnesses explained that they feared the accused, who was a policeman in their town. The trial court's evaluation of credibility was sustained, absent any showing that it overlooked facts of significance.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive and categorical testimony. For alibi to prosper, it must be proven that during the commission of the crime the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, which the documents he presented did not establish. A negative paraffin test does not conclusively show that a person did not fire a gun, since the residue can be removed in many ways, deliberately or accidentally. Finally, administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal and civil liability, so the dismissal of the administrative case did not absolve him of criminal liability.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the penalty but modified the civil liability, increasing the civil indemnity to 75,000 pesos in line with prevailing jurisprudence and awarding 50,000 pesos as moral damages, which is granted without need of further proof other than the fact of the killing.

Doctrine

• Homicide under Article 249 requires proof 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.
• Where the eyewitness was familiar with both the victim and the accused, where the scene afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive is shown, the identification deserves much weight.
• Delay in naming a criminal assailant does not impair credibility if satisfactorily explained, as where the witnesses feared the accused.
• Denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification; alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene.
• A negative paraffin test is not conclusive proof of innocence, and administrative liability is separate and distinct from criminal liability.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification, ordering the accused to pay the heirs of the victim 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

Remember the line that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive and categorical testimony, and that a negative paraffin test does not exculpate. Examiners use this case to test the elements of homicide, the credibility of delayed identification, and the separate character of administrative and criminal liability.