PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REGGIE VILLARIEZ ALIAS “TOTI,” APPELLANT.

People versus Villariez

The Case

This is an appeal by Reggie Villariez, known by the alias Toti, from a decision of the Court of Appeals that convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The People of the Philippines prosecuted him for the shooting death of Enrique Olimba in a cemetery in Pilar, Capiz. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision several doctrines tested in criminal law and evidence: the effect of a failure to prove conspiracy when the Information charges it, the requisites of a dying declaration, the appreciation of treachery, and the weight of a defense of denial against positive identification by relatives of the victim.

Procedural History

Villariez was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 17, together with his brothers Amado and Tomas. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Villariez, but only of homicide, finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and taking advantage of strength were not established. It sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term and ordered him to pay damages to the heirs.

Villariez appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning as errors the reliance on the testimonies of the victim's widow, son, and daughter, the treatment of the victim's statement as a dying declaration, and the failure of the prosecution to identify him beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, convicting him of murder qualified by treachery, imposing reclusion perpetua, and increasing the damages. Villariez then brought the case to the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

On the afternoon of 3 July 1995, the Olimba family attended the burial of a relative in the Catholic Cemetery of Barangay Casanayan, Pilar, Capiz. Enrique Olimba was there with his wife Perla and their children Ana and Randy. While the family was praying the novena, Ana, standing on a tomb about eight meters from her father, heard a gunshot and saw her father spinning. Randy, who was two to three meters away, saw Villariez and his two brothers position themselves behind his father, and then saw Villariez shoot him with a short firearm. The three fled. Ana cradled her dying father and asked who shot him, and in a voice she could hardly hear, he uttered the name Toti. The postmortem examination showed the cause of death was severe hemorrhage from a gunshot wound, with the bullet entering at the back.

Villariez set up denial and alibi. He claimed he was at the same cemetery for the burial of his own uncle, with his friend Jalbuna, and that he heard a sudden outburst and saw a person fall. He and Jalbuna then went to Balasan, Iloilo. His brother Tomas testified that he saw a lone gunman he did not recognize, and that the victim's children were not present.

The Regional Trial Court gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses, found no ill motive on their part, and convicted Villariez of homicide. The Court of Appeals, on appeal, found Randy's eyewitness account corroborated by the postmortem findings, held that the family relationship of the witnesses to the victim did not impair their credibility, and appreciated treachery because the shooting was swift, sudden, and unforeseen. It convicted him of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to amend the Information, which charged conspiracy, to allege that Villariez acted alone, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Whether or not the statement of the victim identifying Villariez as his assailant is admissible as a dying declaration.
• Whether or not treachery qualified the killing to murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

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 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 provision under which Villariez was charged and convicted, and treachery is the circumstance that raised the killing from homicide to murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no violation of due process. The Information charged Villariez, together with his brothers, with inflicting the fatal gunshot wound on Enrique, and the commission of the specific acts charged constituted the offense charged. The failure to establish conspiracy, because one co-accused had died and the case against another was dismissed, did not defeat conviction for the offense charged and proven at trial. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in the case of the United States versus Vitug, where the accused was charged with committing specific acts in conspiracy with co-accused, and the failure to establish the conspiracy did not prevent his conviction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dying declaration was admissible. It laid down the requisites:

For a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, the following requisites must concur: (1) the dying declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (2) at the time of making his declaration, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (3) the declarant must have been competent to testify as a witness; and (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the declarant was the victim.

The Court found all four present. The utterance identified the assailant; the fatal quality of the injury and the barely audible voice showed the victim's death was imminent even without an express statement of consciousness of death; the victim would have been competent to testify had he survived; and the declaration was offered in a murder prosecution where he was the victim. The Court stressed that statements identifying the assailant, uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence, because no one who knows of impending death will make a careless and false accusation.

On the third issue, the Court agreed that treachery qualified the killing. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself. Randy witnessed Villariez shoot his father at the back while the victim was deep in thought listening to the burial service, unprepared and with no means to put up a defense. The attack insured the commission of the crime without risk to Villariez. The Court also rejected the defense of denial as inherently weak and unable to overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, and held that the relationship of the witnesses to the victim did not impair their credibility but even made their testimony more credible.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, when an Information charges the accused with committing specific acts in conspiracy with others, the commission of those specific acts constitutes the offense charged, and the failure to prove conspiracy does not prevent conviction for the offense charged and proven. Second, a dying declaration is admissible when four requisites concur: it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; the declarant was competent to testify; and it is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the declarant was the victim. Consciousness of impending death may be inferred from the fatal nature of the injury and the declarant's condition, without an express statement. Third, treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualifies a killing to murder when the attack is sudden and unexpected, the victim being unsuspecting and deprived of any chance to defend himself. Fourth, denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification, and the relationship of a witness to the victim does not impair credibility.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Villariez of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the damages and legal interest as awarded.

Remember This

Remember the line that the failure to establish conspiracy does not defeat conviction for the offense charged and proven, and that a dying declaration identifying the assailant is entitled to the highest degree of credence. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a dying declaration and the rule that denial cannot overcome positive identification by relatives of the victim.