Facts:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES charged
PAT. FLORESTAN NITCHA Y DULAY with murder arising from events on October 7, 1990 at around seven o'clock in the evening in Purok IV, Barangay Alac, San Quintin, Pangasinan. On that date Jojo Belmonte went to a nearby store to buy cigarettes and was accosted and mauled by Doro Nitcha, whereupon Jojo fought back; May Villarica Sibayan and other members of the Sibayan family arrived and attempted to pacify the scuffle, and Doro was dragged away by his sister Victoria Corpuz; soon thereafter accused-appellant arrived at the sari-sari store brandishing a firearm, shouted threats in Tagalog, and fired toward the Sibayans, the bullet striking May at the back of her head and exiting through her forehead; May was taken to hospital but died en route to Dagupan City. Appellant subsequently surrendered at the San Quintin police station together with his service firearm. An indictment for murder was filed, and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, First Judicial Region, Tayug, Pangasinan, presided by Hon. Pedro C. Cacho, rendered judgment on September 22, 1994 finding appellant guilty of
murder and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua and ordering payment of P50,000 as indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages, and P43,000 for actual expenses. At trial three prosecution witnesses—Jose (Jojo) Belmonte, Agustin Sibayan, and Joselito Sibayan—positively identified appellant as the person who fired the shots, while appellant denied responsibility and advanced an alternate theory that an unnamed companion of Jojo fired the fatal shot; appellant raised twelve assignments of error on appeal challenging identification, evidentiary and procedural matters, and the alleged absence of treachery.
Issues:
Was the evidence sufficient to convict accused-appellant of
murder?
Did the trial suffer reversible procedural infirmities in the form of hearsay testimony, judicial bias, illegal arrest and detention, or absence of preliminary investigation?
Did the negative paraffin test and lack of physical evidence negate the identification of appellant as the shooter?
Was the killing attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery so as to elevate the crime to murder?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: