Case Digest (G.R. No. 197046)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 197046)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. George Zapata y Viana, G.R. No. 197046, July 21, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, George Zapata y Viana, was charged with parricide for the May 11, 2002 killing of his wife, Queeny Zapata y Erespe, in Rodriguez (Montalban), Rizal. The Information alleged that while armed with a .45 pistol, the accused shot his wife in the chest with intent to kill, employing treachery and evident premeditation. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment on June 25, 2002.
Prosecution evidence described an afternoon drinking spree at the Zapata home involving appellant, his brother Manny, and cousin Edwin Bautista; later that evening a gunshot was heard from the bedroom shared by appellant and the victim. The victim was found bleeding in the sala and was later declared dead at the hospital. Police recovered an empty .45 shell from the bedroom. The PNP crime laboratory medico-legal testimony described a single close-range wound traversing vital organs; tattooing indicated a firing distance of about three to four inches. The accused admitted the shot but contended it was accidental, saying the pistol slipped from a cabinet and discharged as he tried to catch it.
At trial the accused's background as a former Philippine Marine corporal and the characteristics of the pistol (loaded, cocked, safety mechanisms not engaged) were emphasized by the prosecution. The trial court (Judge Elizabeth Balquin-Reyes) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with awards of actual, moral damages and costs. The accused appealed.
The Court of Appeals (per Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Baltazar‑Padilla and Barrios, JJ.) affirmed the conviction but modified the award to add exemplary damages of P25,000. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the accused; the Court required supplemental briefs on July 18, 2011 but parties declined, stating the issues had been exhaustively briefed before the CA.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was intentional and not accidental?
- Is the convicted appellant eligible for parole despite the imposition of reclusion perpetua?
- Are the civil damages and exemplary damages awarded by the lower courts proper in quantum, and should they be modified?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)