RODOLFO C. VELASCO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Velasco versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Velasco versus People of the Philippines, a criminal appeal by Rodolfo Velasco, a navy man, who was charged with and convicted of attempted murder for shooting Frederick Maramba in Dagupan City. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled rules on the limited scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the weight of trial court findings on credibility, the elements that make alibi fail, the irrelevance of motive when identity is positively established, and the rule that a ballistic report is not indispensable to conviction.

Procedural History

Velasco was arraigned before Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, assisted by counsel de oficio, and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify the complainant in the amount of 2,696 pesos as actual damages. Velasco filed a notice of appeal. Pending appeal, he was allowed to post bail, and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation was directed to include him in its hold departure list. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the trial court. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, invoking denial and alibi.

Facts

On the morning of 19 April 1998, at about 7:30 in the morning, Frederick Maramba was cleaning and washing his owner type jeep in front of his house at Lasip Grande, Dagupan City. A motorized tricycle stopped near him. Velasco dashed out, approached the complainant, and fired at him several times with a .45 caliber pistol. The first shot missed; the second hit the complainant on the upper arm, causing him to stumble. He stood up and ran, while Velasco continued firing but missed.

The barangay captain reported the incident to the police sub-station, describing the suspect as wearing a vest or chaleco. Policemen pursued the tricycle and caught up with it, bringing Velasco to the police sub-station. A firearm protruding from his waistline, three magazines, and fourteen live ammunitions were confiscated from him, and seven spent ammunitions were recovered at the crime scene. At the city jail, the complainant identified Velasco as the one who shot him. The complainant was hospitalized and treated for a gunshot wound on his left arm, incurring hospitalization and medicine expenses of 2,696.06 pesos.

Armando Maramba, the tricycle driver, testified that he picked up Velasco, who was wearing a chaleco, that Velasco ordered him to stop upon reaching the parked jeep, that Velasco alighted and fired several shots at the victim, and that Velasco then ordered him to proceed to Calasiao. Velasco, for his part, interposed alibi: he claimed he had spent the night in Lingayen, left the next morning, and was on his way to Calasiao when three men on board a jeep pointed guns at him and introduced themselves as policemen. He denied knowing the complainant and denied firing at him, and said his .45 caliber pistol was licensed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court may review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals misapprehended facts when it restated the trial court's findings, adding and omitting words and differing on where the seven spent shells were recovered.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can overcome the positive identification of the petitioner by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the non-presentation of the barangay captain and of a ballistic report constitutes suppression of evidence.
• Whether or not the absence of motive, the relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim, and the circumstances of the shooting raise reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, on attempted felony, provides:

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

This is the provision the trial court applied, in relation to Article 248 and Article 51, in convicting Velasco of attempted murder.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, provides:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

This is the crime charged, qualified by treachery, and the felony whose execution Velasco commenced but did not complete.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a petition under Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and that the Court does not re-examine evidence unless the findings of the Court of Appeals are unsupported by the record or the judgment rests on a misapprehension of facts. The trial court's calibration of testimonial evidence and assessment of credibility are given high respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, because of its unique advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses.

On the second issue, the Court held that the added and omitted words, and the difference as to where the seven spent shells were recovered, are too minor and inconsequential to affect the outcome. Nothing in the record showed any inconsistency as to the identity of the assailant; both the complainant and Armando Maramba pointed to Velasco.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability, and that alibi crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses. For alibi to prosper, it must be proven that the accused was in another place during the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. Here, it took only a ten-minute ride from where he allegedly alighted to the crime scene. The Court quoted its own doctrine:

Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there was no suppression of evidence. The barangay captain was not an eyewitness; he was merely informed by Armando Maramba that the assailant wore a vest, and the petitioner could have asked for a subpoena ad testificandum but did not. As to the ballistic report, the Court held that it is merely corroborative and would be indispensable only where there are no credible eyewitnesses; the corpus delicti and the positive identification of the accused are more than enough to sustain conviction.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that motive is not an element of the crime and need not be proved; lack of motive does not preclude conviction when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility; it could even strengthen it, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. The shooting in broad daylight and in the presence of a witness does not render its commission impossible.

Doctrine

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raises only questions of law; factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive absent a misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion. Alibi, to be valid, must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the locus criminis; the least possibility of presence destroys it. Denial is self-serving and cannot prevail over positive identification. Motive is not an element of the crime and becomes significant only when the perpetrator is unknown. A ballistic report is corroborative and not a prerequisite for conviction where there are credible eyewitnesses. Finally, relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim does not impair credibility absent proof of improper motive.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the conviction of Rodolfo Velasco for attempted murder.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi must be so airtight that it admits of no exception, for where there is the least possibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water. Examiners use this case to test the Rule 45 limitation on questions of fact, the requisites of alibi, and the rule that motive and a ballistic report are not indispensable when identity is positively established.