G.R. No. 145383-84 - Villarena vs. Commission on Audit

On the night of 27 September 2000, Emilio Enriquez, a 51‐year‐old fisherman from Navotas City, was killed after being gunned down at a store just across his home.
Rael Delfin, the appellant, was suspected of being the perpetrator and was later charged with murder under Article 248(1) of Act No. 3815 (Revised Penal Code).
The formal charging occurred on 13 March 2001 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon, where the information alleged that the murder was committed "on or about the 27th day of November 2000," raising a discrepancy with the evidence presented at trial.

The prosecution presented crucial testimonies and documentary evidence to establish the facts:

Testimony of eyewitness Joan Cruz, who not only witnessed the killing but also provided a detailed account of the sequence of events.
The autopsy report by Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, a Philippine National Police physician, which confirmed that Emilio died from two gunshot wounds (one to the left side of his head and one to the chest).

Supporting documents, including the resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor and a sworn statement from Joan, consistently indicated that the murder occurred on 27 September 2000, despite the information’s erroneous reference to November.

Positioned outside Emilio’s residence at around 10:45 p.m. on 27 September 2000, she observed Emilio conversing on the telephone at a nearby store.
She saw the appellant seating on a bench beside Emilio at the store and later witnessed him firing a gun, first with a shot that struck Emilio in the head and immediately another shot thereafter.
Joan testified that there was no prior altercation or misunderstanding observed between Emilio and the appellant.

Conducted a post mortem examination and confirmed that Emilio sustained two fatal gunshot wounds.
His medico-legal report provided objective proof correlating with the eyewitness account and thereby strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The appellant contended that he was on a fishing trip in the seas off Bataan at the time of the murder, thereby establishing an alibi.
His testimony was initially corroborated by Rene Villanueva, one of his companions on the trip.
However, Rene later admitted that the fishing trip actually began on 26 September 2000 and concluded on 27 September 2000, placing both him and the appellant in Navotas City at the time of the incident, thereby undermining the alibi.

The RTC rendered a judgment on 20 July 2009, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity and consequential damages.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction on 29 April 2012, although it modified the order by replacing the award of consequential damages with moral damages and leaving the civil indemnity award in place.
The current appeal centers on three contentions:

The discrepancy between the date of the crime in the information (27 November 2000) and that established by the evidence (27 September 2000), alleging a violation of the accused’s right to be properly informed of the charge.
The credibility and efficacy of the appellant’s alibi.
The proper appreciation and application of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the conviction.

Although the information erroneously stated the month of the commission, the accompanying documents and evidence unanimously identified the incident as having occurred on 27 September 2000.
The court characterized the error as a clerical mistake that did not affect the substantial rights of the accused because the date is not a material element of the offense of murder under the law, provided it is approximated closely enough to allow preparation of a defense.

Whether the discrepancy between the date stated in the information (27 November 2000) and the date established during trial (27 September 2000) constitutes a fatal flaw that invalidates the information.
Whether such a variance, when involving a non-material element, may be disregarded or corrected through judicial doctrine or amendment.

Whether the appellant’s alibi—that he was fishing off Bataan—was credible and corroborated by reliable evidence.
Whether the later admission by the witness Rene Villanueva effectively negates the alibi by placing the appellant in Navotas at the time of the murder.

Whether the evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimony, sufficiently establishes the element of treachery in the killing of Emilio.
Whether the defense’s arguments against the qualification of treachery have any merit in light of the trial court’s findings.

Whether the error in stating the date of the offense impaired the appellant’s right to be informed of the accurate charge and thus his ability to prepare an intelligent defense.

Whether the modifications made by the CA—including the increase in civil indemnity and the award of exemplary damages—are proper and in line with prevailing jurisprudence.