Case Summary (G.R. No. 221356)
Case Background and Incident
On September 2, 1998, Rudy Baclig, who had consumed about half a bottle of gin, was walking with his son when a gray automobile passed by and then reversed toward him. The driver, identified by Rudy as petitioner Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr., called out to him by his nickname "Parrod." When Rudy approached, petitioner opened the car door, drew a gun, and shot Rudy once below the left armpit. Rudy ran to the back of the car while petitioner sped away. Rudy later sought help and was brought initially to the Municipal Hall of Gonzaga, then to Don Alfonso Ponce Memorial Hospital. The next day, Rudy was discharged.
Criminal Charge and Initial Trial
On June 1, 1999, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information charging petitioner with frustrated murder, alleging intent to kill with evident premeditation and treachery, and aggravation by use of an unlicensed firearm. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed he was in Quezon City at the time to handle NIA-related matters, backed by a Certificate of Appearance and daily time records.
Regional Trial Court’s Decision
The RTC of Aparri, Cagayan, found petitioner guilty of attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Court assessed Rudy’s identification of petitioner as credible, noting sufficient lighting at about three meters distance and Rudy’s longtime acquaintance with petitioner. It rejected petitioner’s alibi, reasoning that petitioner could have returned to Gonzaga between September 1 and 2, 1998 to commit the crime. Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay damages.
Court of Appeals’ Modification
The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding that petitioner shot Rudy but downgraded the conviction to less serious physical injuries. It held that petitioner’s single gunshot, absence of multiple attacks, and the victim’s non-life-threatening injury did not establish clear intent to kill. The CA also ruled that the evidence did not show treachery. Petitioner was sentenced to six months of arresto mayor.
Petitioner’s Contentions on Appeal
Petitioner argued that Rudy failed to positively identify him as the assailant, relying solely on voice recognition at nighttime while intoxicated. He claimed insufficient light, no proof of ownership of the car, and an alibi supported by documentary evidence showing he was in Quezon City from September 1 to 4, 1998. Petitioner also challenged the CA for allegedly dismissing his defenses and relying unduly on a supposed motive related to his anti-drug activities.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Identity and Credibility
The Court upheld the RTC and CA’s findings that Rudy positively identified petitioner as the shooter. Rudy recognized petitioner not merely by voice but by sight through car lights and nearby store lighting at a short distance. Rudy’s admission of liquor consumption was not enough to impair his identification, especially as he regularly drank and was able to walk normally. The attending physician confirmed Rudy was coherent and able to answer questions. Rudy promptly informed authorities that petitioner shot him. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a single credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient for conviction.
Assessment of Petitioner’s Alibi Defense
The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive victim identification. Proving presence elsewhere requires showing impossibility of being at the crime scene or its vicinity at the relevant time. Petitioner’s proof only established personal appearance at NIA on September 1 and 4, leaving the two days in between unaccounted for. There was no evidence to exclude possibility that petitioner returned to Cagayan, committed the shooting, and went back to Quezon City.
Legal Characterization of the Crime
The Court agreed with the CA that the crime committed was less serious physical injuries, not attempted murder. The essential element of attempted or frustrated murder—clear intent to kill—was not sufficiently proven. Petitioner’s single gunshot wound was not aimed at a vital part, was followed by no further attacks, and victim’s injury required only ten days’ medical attendance. The Court stressed that homicidal intent must be established beyond reasonable doubt and such intent cannot be inferred from mere commission of the shooting.
Absence of Treachery
The CA’s finding of tre
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221356)
Background and Case History
- The case involves Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr. (petitioner), who was charged with frustrated murder for shooting Rudy Baclig on September 2, 1998, in Gonzaga, Cagayan.
- Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty of attempted murder and sentenced him to prision correccional, minimum to maximum.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR. No. 27458, affirmed with modification; the petitioner was found guilty only of less serious physical injuries, sentenced to six months of arresto mayor.
- Subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.
- The petitioner denied involvement, claiming an alibi of being in Quezon City to oversee NIA project funding from September 1 to 4, 1998, supported by certificates and testimonies.
Facts of the Incident
- Rudy Baclig was intoxicated, having consumed half a bottle of gin before heading to a store with his young son.
- A gray automobile approached, stopped near Rudy, and the driver called him by his nickname "Parrod."
- Upon Rudy taking a step closer, the driver (petitioner) opened the car door and shot Rudy once, hitting him below the left armpit.
- Rudy fled behind the car, the petitioner sped away; Rudy then sought help and was initially taken to the Municipal Hall, then to a hospital, discharged the next day.
- Rudy positively identified the petitioner as his assailant, supported by his testimony and medical evidence (close range gunpowder burns).
Charges and Lower Courts’ Findings
- The Provincial Prosecutor charged petitioner with frustrated murder, citing intent to kill, evident premeditation, treachery, and use of an unlicensed firearm.
- RTC found petitioner guilty of attempted murder, emphasizing Rudy’s positive identification and dismissing alibi on grounds that petitioner could have returned to Cagayan on the day of the shooting.
- CA modified RTC’s decision, convicting him only for less serious physical injuries, opining that there was no clear intent to kill based on the circumstances and nature of the wound.
- CA underscored petitioner’s single shot and lack of follow-up attack or use of the car to run over Rudy as indicating absence of homicidal intent.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Questions weight given to Rudy’s identification given his intoxication, nighttime occurrence, and alleged vision impairment.
- Contends Rudy identified petitioner only by voice, which was for the first time heard during the incident.
- Argues that ownership of the vehicle was never proven.
- Asserts alibi was strong—petitioner was in Quezon City during the crime.
- Claims CA erred in relying on supposed motive tied to petitioner’s role as an anti-drug crusader in his town.