PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHRIS CORPUZ Y BASBAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Corpuz

The Case

This is People versus Corpuz, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Chris Corpuz for the killing of Gilbert Cerezo with an unlicensed firearm. The accused was charged with murder, tried, convicted, and now asks the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment of conviction. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the settled rules on the conclusiveness of factual findings, the credibility of an eyewitness who demonstrates the shooting in open court, the treatment of an extrajudicial affidavit taken ex parte, the weakness of denial and alibi against positive identification, the requisites of treachery, and the current amounts of civil indemnity, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in murder.

Procedural History

Chris Corpuz was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dagupan City, and pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court, in its decision of 15 February 2008, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm, appreciated treachery, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with awards of damages to the heirs of the victim. Corpuz appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its decision of 18 November 2009, affirmed the conviction in full. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising the same assigned errors he had raised below: that the trial court gave credence to the eyewitness testimony of Romeo Aquino despite his alleged failure to positively identify the appellant, and that the trial court wrongly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Facts

At about 8:45 in the evening of 22 October 2000, Gilbert Cerezo was with his friends Romeo Aquino, Jonathan Baloy, and Frankie Presto in front of his house in barangay Salay, Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The group sent Presto on an errand to buy gin. While waiting, Cerezo crossed the road to talk with Christina, known as Naning, the daughter of the appellant, whose house stood about six meters across from his own.

Suddenly, Chris Corpuz came out of his house and shot Cerezo with a handgun. Cerezo was unable to put up any defense. Aquino and the others brought him to the hospital, where he died. Dr. Danilo Claridad, the municipal health officer, testified that the gunshot wound entered the left portion of the body about four inches below the nipple, ran through part of the stomach and the liver, and caused massive blood loss; no slug and no exit wound were found. After the shooting, the appellant walked toward the dark eastern portion of the road. He left the place and returned only after six years, and was arrested in 2006.

For his part, the appellant testified that he was inside his house watching television when he heard a gunshot. Going out to check on water he was boiling, he found Cerezo in front of the door, who said, "Kuya Chris," and, when told his father was looking for him, said, "Don't mind him, I was injured." The appellant sent Naning to call Cerezo's father, and when the father arrived and the wounded man failed to answer him, the father boxed the appellant. Naning testified for her father, but on examination it came out that she and the victim were lovers, a relationship her father did not approve, which explained why Cerezo had come to talk to her outside the house.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in giving credence to the eyewitness testimony of Romeo Aquino despite his alleged failure to positively identify the appellant as the assailant.
• Whether or not the inconsistencies between Aquino's affidavit and his testimony in open court tainted the truthfulness of his eyewitness account.
• Whether or not the appellant's defense of denial can prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witness.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing of Gilbert Cerezo.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes the crime of murder, and the Court cites it for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

Article 248. Murder. 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 temporal in its maximum period 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.

The Court applies this provision because the killing was qualified by treachery, which fixes the crime as murder and carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

The Court also states the governing definition and elements of treachery in its own words:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This definition controls the second assigned error, because the Court uses it to test whether the sudden shooting of an unsuspecting victim qualifies the killing as murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was unmeritorious. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the Supreme Court when supported by the evidence on record. The Court scoured the records for arbitrariness or oversight of a circumstance of weight and found none. Aquino positively identified the appellant in a straightforward manner, narrated and demonstrated how the appellant shot the victim, and pointed to him as the person who fired the handgun. The trial court observed his demeanor on the witness stand, and there was no motive on his part to attribute the killing to the appellant, a neighbor he had long known.

On the second issue, the Court found no inconsistency that would place the guilt in doubt. An affidavit taken ex parte is generally unreliable as oftentimes it is inaccurate, and discrepancies on minor details do not erase but enhance the credibility of the witness or his testimony. Aquino insisted during cross-examination that he actually witnessed the shooting, and he demonstrated how it was carried out.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial cannot overcome a positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and untainted by ill motive. Denial is self-serving and deserves no weight in law, and alibi is viewed with suspicion because it can easily be fabricated. For alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove not only that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of the crime. The testimony of Naning, offered to extricate her father, further destroyed the credibility of the defense, and the appellant's flight from the scene and return only after six years removed any remaining shred of doubt on his guilt.

On the fourth issue, the Court upheld the finding of treachery. The attack was swift and sudden, and the unsuspecting victim had no expectation of the coming assault, as he was engaged in conversation with the appellant's daughter. The suddenness of the act facilitated the commission of the crime. The Court quoted the definition of treachery and its two elements: the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

On the penalty, the Court held that murder qualified by treachery is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death, and that the lower courts correctly imposed reclusion perpetua only, since there were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. On damages, the Court increased the civil indemnity to 75,000 pesos, reduced the exemplary damages to 30,000 pesos, and imposed interest on all monetary awards at the legal rate of six percent from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the Supreme Court when supported by the evidence on record. Second, an affidavit taken ex parte is generally unreliable, and discrepancies on minor details do not destroy the credibility of a witness or his positive identification of the accused. Third, denial and alibi cannot prevail over a positive, categorical, and consistent identification untainted by ill motive; for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time of the crime. Fourth, there is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make, and its elements are that the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and that the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. Fifth, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, murder qualified by treachery carries reclusion perpetua to death, and in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modification, ordering Chris Corpuz to pay the heirs of Gilbert Cerezo 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages, all with interest at the legal rate of six percent from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: denial and alibi cannot prevail over a positive and categorical identification, and a sudden attack on an unsuspecting victim who had no opportunity to defend himself is attended by treachery. Examiners use this case for the requisites of treachery, the rule on alibi, and the current amounts of civil indemnity, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in murder.