G.R. No. 143340 - Sunga-Chan vs. Chua

On August 8, 1997, at about 6:00 p.m., Vicente Delector was conversing with his brother Antolin near his residence in Barangay Diaz, Gandara, Samar.
During the conversation, Armando Delector, another brother of the deceased, appeared and shot Vicente twice with a revolver.
The victim was rushed to the Gandara District Hospital and later transferred to the Samar Provincial Hospital, where he succumbed to his gunshot wounds at about 1:00 a.m. on the following day.

Vicente’s son, Arnel, identified his uncle, Armando Delector, as the shooter, stating that Armando fired from the vicinity of their mother’s house.
Raymond Reyes, who was present after coming from school, corroborated Arnel’s identification and confirmed that Vicente was engaged in conversation with Antolin when he was shot.
Dr. Leonida Taningco, the attending physician at the Gandara District Hospital, testified that the victim’s account pointed to Armando as the assailant.

On October 2, 1997, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Samar charged Armando Delector with murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) through an information alleging that on August 8, 1997, at Barangay Diaz, he willfully and unlawfully attacked Vicente using a self-convenienced revolver.
The information alleged that the shooting was executed with deliberate intent to kill, aided by treachery and evident premeditation, which was to be read as elements of murder.

During trial, Armando Delector, along with his son, contended that the shooting was an accident.
The defense narrative claimed that the incident occurred when Vicente visited their house looking for Armando, who had already left to their mother’s nearby house to avoid a confrontation.
It was further asserted that a confrontation ensued between Vicente and Antolin, compelling Armando to intervene; during a struggle over a gun, the weapon accidentally discharged, resulting in fatal gunshot wounds on Vicente.

The RTC found armando guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua, along with awarding civil indemnity, actual, and moral damages to the heirs of Vicente.
The decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals (CA), notwithstanding the defense’s contention regarding the credibility given to prosecution witnesses and the improper admission of the accident defense.

The direct identification by Arnel and Raymond, supported by the recollection of Dr. Taningco, formed the basis of the prosecution’s evidence.
The mechanics of the revolver—requiring considerable pressure on the trigger to discharge—were cited to negate the possibility of an accidental firing, particularly as two shots were fired.
Observations of the accused’s behavior, such as failing to offer assistance or show concern for the wounded victim, further undermined the credibility of the accident claim.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over the declarations of Armando Delector and his son.

Whether the defense’s claim of accidental discharge qualifies as an exempting circumstance under Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the evidence adequately established that Armando acted with due care and without fault or intention during the incident.

Whether the facts alleged in the information supported a conviction for murder, specifically the elements of treachery and evident premeditation, or were only sufficient to establish homicide.
Whether the lower courts erred in applying the label “murder” when the factual averments did not sustain the requisite characteristics of treachery and evident premeditation.

Whether the information, as filed, met the requirements of Section 9, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure in sufficiently informing the accused of the nature and cause of the charge.