Case Summary (G.R. No. 167766)
Key Dates
Incident: Night of September 2, 1998. Information filed: June 1, 1999. RTC Decision convicting petitioner: February 27, 2003. Court of Appeals Decision (modifying RTC): February 18, 2005. CA Resolution denying reconsideration: April 19, 2005. Supreme Court decision affirming with modification: April 7, 2010.
Applicable Law
Relevant law as applied by the courts includes provisions of the Revised Penal Code concerning attempted and frustrated murder and physical injuries (Article 265 referenced for less serious physical injuries), standards for aggravating circumstance of treachery, the indeterminate sentence law (not applied where maximum imprisonment is under one year), and the Civil Code provisions on damages (Arts. 2217, 2219 referenced).
Factual Background
On the night of September 2, 1998, after drinking half a bottle of gin, Rudy Baclig left to buy coffee and sugar accompanied by his four-year-old son. A gray automobile approached, stopped about two arm’s length (approximately three meters) away, moved backward and stopped, and the driver called Rudy by his nickname “Parrod.” As Rudy approached, the driver—identified by Rudy as petitioner—opened the car door and, while still inside the vehicle, drew a gun and fired once, striking Rudy below the left armpit. Petitioner then sped away. Rudy sought help, was taken to the municipal hall for interrogation where he identified petitioner to a policeman, and was later treated at Don Alfonso Ponce Memorial Hospital; his wound, with powder burns, reflected close-range firing and required ten days’ medical attendance according to the medico-legal certificate.
Criminal Information and Plea
The Provincial Prosecutor of Aparri filed an Information charging petitioner with frustrated murder, alleging that on September 2, 1998, petitioner, armed with an unlicensed firearm, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, assaulted and shot Rudy, performing all acts of execution which would have produced murder but which did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Defense and Documentary Evidence
Petitioner denied involvement and asserted an alibi: he claimed presence in Quezon City from September 1 to September 4, 1998 to follow up NIA project funding. He produced a Certificate of Appearance signed by Engr. Orlando C. Hondrade (Deputy Administrator of NIA) and Hondrade testified via deposition that petitioner personally appeared before him on September 1 and 4 for 10–15 minutes. Petitioner also presented a daily time record and asserted a travel authority for Quezon City.
RTC Findings and Rationale
The RTC found petitioner guilty of attempted murder. It credited the victim’s positive identification of petitioner, emphasizing adequate lighting (car lights and nearby store lights) and the short distance (about three meters) between assailant and victim. The RTC also noted the medico-legal evidence of powder burns indicating close range. The RTC rejected alibi as implausible given petitioner’s personal appearance before Hondrade on September 1 and the lack of proof that petitioner could not return to Gonzaga and commit the offense on September 2.
Court of Appeals Decision and Modification
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s finding that petitioner was the shooter but modified the conviction to less serious physical injuries rather than attempted murder. The CA concluded the prosecution failed to establish homicidal intent beyond reasonable doubt: a single shot not directed to a vital part, absence of multiple shots or pursuit or running over the victim, and the victim’s wound requiring only ten days’ medical attendance led the CA to deem less serious physical injuries the proper offense. The CA applied one aggravating circumstance (not specified in the excerpt) and sentenced petitioner to six months’ arresto mayor.
Issues Raised in Supreme Court Petition
Petitioner asserted grave abuse of discretion by the CA in crediting the victim’s identification given alleged intoxication and nighttime conditions, contended the CA failed to properly consider defense evidence and arguments including the alibi, and protested reliance on an alleged motive (petitioner’s anti-illegal drugs stance) as unfounded.
Supreme Court Standard on Witness Credibility and Identification
The Supreme Court reiterated established principles: the sole testimony of a credible eyewitness can suffice for conviction; trial court findings on credibility are afforded great respect because of its opportunity to directly observe witnesses; appellate affirmation reinforces deference to trial findings. The Court reviewed the transcript and concluded both RTC and CA properly credited Rudy’s positive and consistent identification of petitioner, supported by the circumstances of visibility, proximity, and immediate declarations to a police investigator and attending doctor.
Analysis of Intoxication and Visual Perception
The Supreme Court addressed the victim’s admitted drinking, noting that admission of habitual drinking and ability to walk and respond to questions defeated an inference that his perception was so impaired as to invalidate identification. The presence of car lights and nearby store illumination and the short three-meter distance were deemed sufficient for visual identification when the car window/door was opened, not merely auditory recognition.
Alibi Defense Analysis
The Court applied the well-settled rule that alibi is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification. It emphasized that to succeed, alibi must show the accused was so far away as to make physical presence at the crime scene impossible. The Certificate of Appearance evidenced petitioner’s presence before Hondrade only on September 1 and 4; petitioner’s whereabouts on September 2–3 remained unaccounted for, leaving open the possibility he returned to Cagayan to commit the offense. Accordingly, the alibi did not overcome Rudy’s identification.
Intent to Kill and Proper Offense Determination
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that intent to kill—an essential element for attempted or frustrated murder—was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The single shot, absence of multiple attempts, failure to hit a vital part, and conduct inconsistent with ensuring death (no pursuit or running over) did not permit a clear inference of homicidal intent. Given the medico-legal certificate indicating medical attendance for ten days and the actual short hospital stay, the Court concurred that the proper classification of the offense wa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167766)
Case Caption, Court and Decision Information
- G.R. No.: 167766; Decision promulgated April 7, 2010, Third Division of the Supreme Court.
- Decision penned by Associate Justice PERALTA, J.; concurred in by Corona (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Mendoza, JJ.
- Case assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 18, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 27458 and the Resolution dated April 19, 2005 denying motion for reconsideration.
- CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.
- Trial court Decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6 (Judge Rolando R. Velasco) in Criminal Case No. VI-984.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Information for frustrated murder (later treated as attempted murder at trial) was filed June 1, 1999, by the Provincial Prosecutor of Aparri, Cagayan.
- Petitioner pleaded Not Guilty at arraignment.
- RTC (February 27, 2003) convicted petitioner of Attempted Murder and imposed a prison sentence and ordered P2,000.00 indemnity to private complainant.
- CA (February 18, 2005) affirmed with modification: found petitioner guilty only of Less Serious Physical Injuries and sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor.
- Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration at the CA; the motion was denied in a Resolution dated April 19, 2005.
- Petition to the Supreme Court seeks review of CA’s finding and relief from conviction or reclassification and challenges to evidentiary and credibility determinations.
Facts as Found and Presented at Trial
- Date and setting: Night of September 2, 1998, in the Municipality of Gonzaga, Cagayan.
- Complainant: Rudy Baclig, who had been drinking with his brother-in-law; after consuming "A12 bottle of gin" he left to buy coffee and sugar at the house of one Siababa, accompanied by his four-year-old son.
- Sequence of incident as related by Rudy:
- A gray automobile passed them and later moved backward toward them.
- When the car stopped at roughly two arms' length (about three meters), the driver called Rudy by his nickname "Parrod."
- Rudy took one step toward the car; the driver (identified by Rudy as petitioner) opened the door and, while still in the car, drew a gun and shot Rudy once, the bullet hitting just below the left armpit.
- Rudy immediately ran to the back of the car; the car then sped away.
- After the departure of the car, Rudy and his son went to the seashore; Rudy later returned, shouted for help, was assisted, taken to the Municipal Hall of Gonzaga where he identified his assailant to a policeman as petitioner, and thereafter brought to Don Alfonso Ponce Memorial Hospital at Gonzaga.
- Rudy was discharged the following day.
- Medical observations: treating physician Dr. Mila M. Marantan described the gunshot wound as having powder burns (evidence of close range) and the Medico-Legal Certificate indicated the wound would require ten (10) days of medical attendance (Records, p. 6).
Charge in the Information; Legal Characterization Pleaded by Prosecution
- Formal charge (Information filed June 1, 1999) charged frustrated murder with allegations that:
- On or about September 2, 1998, in Gonzaga, Cagayan, accused, armed with a gun, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot Rudy Baclig inflicting gunshot injuries.
- It was alleged that accused performed all acts of execution which would have produced Murder but did not produce it due to causes independent of his will.
- The offense was alleged to be aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm.
Petitioner’s Defense: Denial and Alibi Evidence
- Petitioner’s primary defense was denial of involvement and the alibi that he was in Quezon City from September 1 to the afternoon of September 4, 1998, following up funding for an NIA project in Gonzaga.
- Documentary and testimonial proof adduced by petitioner:
- Certificate of Appearance issued by Engr. Orlando C. Hondrade, then NIA Deputy Administrator.
- Engr. Hondrade testified by deposition that petitioner personally appeared before him on September 1 and September 4 for 10–15 minutes on each date and that he signed the Certificate of Appearance.
- Petitioner submitted his daily time record and asserted he left the NIA office in Cagayan on the afternoon of August 31, 1998 pursuant to a travel authority issued by his superior.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Rationale
- RTC Decision (February 27, 2003) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of Attempted Murder and sentenced him to imprisonment (minimum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional; maximum: 8 years prision mayor) and ordered payment of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to private complainant.
- RTC’s factual findings included:
- Rudy positively identified petitioner as the shooter; identification was credible because of adequate lighting from the car and nearby store and the close proximity (about three meters).
- Medico-legal evidence (powder burns) established close-range firing consistent with Rudy’s account.
- Rudy had admitted drinking half a bottle of gin but could still walk and answer questions coherently; the doctor noted odor of liquor but could not quantify intoxication and Rudy responded to questions.
- Rudy immediately informed a police investigator and the treating doctor that petitioner was his assailant.
- RTC found petitioner’s alibi implausible because a personal appearance on September 1 did not preclude a return to Gonzaga on September 2 to commit the offense and return to Quezon City.
Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling and Reasoning
- CA Decision (February 18, 2005) affirmed RTC with modification: found petitioner guilty only of Less Serious Physical Injuries; sentenced to six (6) months of arresto mayor, citing one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances to offset it.
- CA’s principal reasoning:
- Intent to kill was not established beyond reasonable doubt: petitioner fired only a single shot that did not hit a vital part; there was no successive assault nor acts ensuring victim’s death (e.g., chasing or running over Rudy).
- Petitioner’s desistence after a single shot indicated lack of clear homicidal intent.
- The wound on the arm required only ten (10) days’ medical attendance according to medico-legal findings; hence the crime aligned with less serious physical injuries.
- On identification: CA held Rudy was able to see and not merely hear the assailant—lights from the car and a nearby store enabled visual identification at a