Case Summary (G.R. No. 217721)
Charging Instrument and Plea
The petitioner was charged by Information dated April 30, 2008 with homicide for having, on or about February 20, 2008, allegedly struck and hit the victim, Anthony Sumad-ong Nerida, with a hard object, inflicting fatal injuries. Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
Prosecution Evidence
The prosecution presented three witnesses: Ricardo de Guzman, Ryan Cruz, and Alfredo Nerida, Sr. De Guzman testified that on February 20, 2008, at around 7:30 p.m. he saw the victim with a bleeding nose and later heard the victim say that he had been boxed, struck on his nose, and hit on the back of his head with a bottle by the petitioner, arising from an earlier altercation about the victim being drunk at work. Cruz corroborated De Guzman’s account, observing an approximately three-inch open wound on the victim’s head and recounting that the victim pointed to the petitioner as the one who struck him. Nerida Sr., the victim’s father, likewise testified that the victim told him the petitioner caused the injuries and that those injuries resulted in the victim’s death two days later. The victim did not seek medical attention immediately after the incident.
Defense Evidence
The defense presented the petitioner, who denied inflicting injuries or having an altercation with the victim. The defense also called Dr. Bernardo Parado, Municipal Health Officer, who conducted an autopsy. Dr. Parado described the laceration as superficial under the skin and testified that, based on his post-mortem examination, the victim died of “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt force injury occipital area, middle.” The parties also introduced as a common exhibit the death certificate prepared by Dr. Mark Anthony M. Cuevas, which stated the immediate cause of death as respiratory failure, antecedent cause secondary to sepsis, and underlying cause secondary to acute pancreatitis and pneumonia.
RTC Decision and Sentence
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 33, Bauang, La Union) in a decision dated April 24, 2012 found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence within the statutory range for homicide and ordered the petitioner to pay actual damages, moral damages, death indemnity, and costs. The RTC relied substantially on the victim’s declarations to the prosecution witnesses identifying the petitioner and found no showing of ill motive that would undermine those witnesses’ credibility.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction. The CA held that the witnesses’ testimonies were not hearsay because what was being offered was the fact that the victim made the utterance (not independently to prove truth of all matters asserted), and further concluded that the victim’s declaration and the witnesses’ recounting of it formed part of res gestae. The CA found the prosecution’s witnesses credible and that their testimony, together with the autopsy findings, established the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The sole issue advanced in the petition for review was whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction despite alleged failure of the prosecution to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner argued that the prosecution’s witnesses’ testimony identifying him was hearsay and not admissible as either a dying declaration or res gestae, and that, in any event, the evidence was conflicting and insufficient.
Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
The Supreme Court treated the petition as falling within recognized exceptions to the general limitation of Rule 45 petitions to questions of law, because the CA’s uniform conclusion was manifestly mistaken and required re-evaluation of the evidence. The Court emphasized the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its own evidence. Failure to meet that burden mandates acquittal.
Analysis of Medical Evidence and Equipoise
The Court analyzed the apparent conflict between the death certificate (a public document admitted as prima facie evidence of its contents) and the autopsy report as testified to by Dr. Parado. The death certificate attributed the immediate cause of death to respiratory failure secondary to sepsis and related medical conditions, while the autopsy attributed death to consequences of blunt force head injury. Because both instruments pointed to respiratory arrest but differed materially as to antecedent and underlying causes, the medical evidence was in equipoise. Applying the equipoise rule in criminal cases, where the evidence is evenly balanced the accused must be acquitted; the Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was the result of the injuries imputed to the petitioner.
Hearsay and Exceptions Considered
Since the identity of the assailant rested solely on what the victim allegedly told the prosecution witnesses, the Court evaluated admissibility under hearsay doctrine. Two exceptions were considered: dying declaration and res gestae. The Court reiterated that, as a rule, witnesses may only testify to matters within their personal knowledge, and out-of-court declarations are generally hearsay unless they fall within recognized exceptions.
Dying Declaration Analysis
The Court articulated the four requisites for a dying declaration: (1) that the declaration concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) that at the time of utterance the declarant be under consciousness of impending death; (3) the declarant be competent as a witness; and (4) the declaration be offered in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217721)
Case Citation, Panel and Procedural Posture
- G.R. No. 217721, Decision dated September 15, 2021, Second Division of the Supreme Court; opinion penned by Justice Gaerlan.
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 29, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR No. 34991 and the CA Resolution dated March 20, 2015 denying reconsideration.
- The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, Decision dated April 24, 2012 in Criminal Case No. 3651-BG finding the petitioner guilty of homicide.
- The Supreme Court treated the petition as meritorious and applied an exception to the rule limiting Rule 45 petitions to questions of law, finding the CA and RTC’s uniform conclusion manifestly mistaken and warranting re-evaluation of the evidence.
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: the CA Decision (May 29, 2014) and CA Resolution (March 20, 2015) were reversed and set aside; petitioner Benjie Lagao y Garcia was acquitted of the crime of homicide and entry of judgment was ordered immediately.
Charged Offense, Information and Plea
- Accused by Information dated April 30, 2008, with homicide for alleged acts on or about February 20, 2008 in Bauang, La Union: that with intent to kill, the accused attacked, struck and hit Anthony Sumad-ong Nerida with a hard object, inflicting fatal injuries causing his death, contrary to law.
- Upon arraignment, petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.
- Trial on the merits ensued after pre-trial.
Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses — Factual Narrative of Events
- Prosecution witnesses: Ricardo de Guzman (De Guzman), Ryan Cruz (Cruz), and Alfredo Nerida, Sr. (Nerida, Sr.), father of the victim Anthony Sumad-ong Nerida.
- De Guzman’s testimony:
- On February 20, 2008 at around 7:30 p.m., he saw the victim and noticed the victim’s nose was bleeding.
- He asked the victim what happened; the victim initially replied “none.”
- While drinking together, the victim told De Guzman that he and the petitioner had an altercation concerning the victim being drunk at work; in the altercation the petitioner boxed, struck the victim on his nose, and hit him with a bottle at the back of his head.
- De Guzman also noticed an open wound on the victim’s head which was bleeding; the victim did not seek medical attention nor report to police.
- Cruz’s testimony:
- Corroborated De Guzman’s account.
- Observed an open wound about three inches long on the victim’s head.
- Asked the victim who caused the injury; the victim pointed to the petitioner as the one who struck him.
- Advised the victim to tell his mother and seek medical attention; the victim refused.
- Nerida, Sr.’s testimony:
- Substantially similar: the victim told him the petitioner caused the injuries.
- Said these injuries resulted in the victim’s death on February 22, 2008.
- Identified the petitioner in open court as his nephew and neighbor.
- Testified he spent approximately P40,000.00 for funeral and related expenses.
- Common exhibit: the victim’s death certificate was presented during trial.
Defense Evidence and Witnesses
- Defense witnesses: the petitioner (Benjie Lagao y Garcia) and Dr. Bernardo Parado (Municipal Health Officer of Bauang).
- Petitioner’s testimony:
- Denied inflicting injuries or having any altercation with the victim.
- Admitted to knowing the victim; the victim was a relative (son of petitioner’s mother’s cousin).
- Dr. Parado’s testimony and autopsy findings:
- Conducted an autopsy on the victim.
- Reported that the lacerated wound was merely superficial, under the skin.
- Affirmed contents of the death certificate prepared by Dr. Mark Anthony M. Cuevas which stated: immediate cause of death — respiratory failure; antecedent cause — secondary to sepsis; underlying cause — secondary to T/C acute pancreatitis and pneumonia.
- Dr. Parado nonetheless clarified, based on his post-mortem examination, that the victim died of “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary to intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt force injury occipital area, middle.”
- Thus, his autopsy report described a traumatic mechanism linked to blunt force injury, while the death certificate attributed death to medical complications.
RTC Ruling and Sentence
- RTC Decision dated April 24, 2012 found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed:
- Indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor (minimum) to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal (maximum).
- Pecuniary awards to the heirs: Php18,600.00 actual damages; Php50,000.00 moral damages; Php50,000.00 death indemnity; and costs.
- RTC’s rationale:
- Concluded the victim’s injuries caused his death.
- Relied heavily on the victim’s declarations to witnesses De Guzman and Cruz identifying petitioner as the assailant.
- Found no showing that those witnesses were actuated by ill motive; thus their testimonies deserved full faith and credit.
Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning
- CA Decision dated May 29, 2014 (CA-G.R. CR No. 34991) dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for utter lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Decision and its order dated May 24, 2012.
- CA’s key findings:
- Admitted the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and found they established a link between the petitioner and the crime.
- Held that the testimonies were not hearsay because what was sought to be admitted was the fact that the utterance was made by the victim, not necessarily the truth of its contents.
- Considered the victim’s declaration to the prosecution witnesses and their testimony pointing to petitioner as part of res gestae.
- Found these testimonies, together with Dr. Parado’s findings, sufficient to prevail over the petitioner’s denial and to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 20, 2015.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Single issue submitted by petitioner: whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction of homicide despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of Petitioner on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Raised the contention that CA failed to notice relevant facts that could lead to a different conclusion.
- Asserted innocence and argued that prosecution witnesses’ testimonies identifying him were hearsay because they were not from the witnesses’ personal knowledge but merely from what they heard from the victim.
- Argued that the victim’s statements could not be admitted as res gestae because t