Case Summary (G.R. No. 235016)
Charge and Trial Proceedings
• Appellant was charged under an Information alleging the complex crime of attempted murder with murder for deliberately firing a handgun at Gerry Marasigan on December 24, 2011.
• The prosecution alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the attempted killing of Gerry and that the same gunshot—by aberratio ictus—caused Jonabelle’s death.
• Appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 207, Muntinlupa City).
Prosecution’s Version
• Gerry Marasigan testified that while closing his front door, appellant suddenly drew and fired a revolver at him without warning or provocation; the bullet missed Gerry and struck his daughter and sister.
• Princess Marasigan corroborated that appellant held a gun at close range and fired once; she took refuge with Jonabelle, both sustaining gunshot wounds.
• Both witnesses positively identified appellant as the assailant.
Defense’s Version
• Appellant claimed an alibi, asserting he was in Samat, Samar at the time of the incident.
• He denied knowing of any hostility with Gerry and offered no independent evidence corroborating his alibi.
Trial Court Findings and Decision
• The trial court found Gerry and Princess credible and rejected appellant’s denial and alibi as uncorroborated.
• It held that appellant’s single act of firing constituted attempted murder of Gerry (qualified by treachery) and homicide of Jonabelle.
• Sentence imposed: indeterminate term of 12 years (minimum) to 20 years (maximum), plus civil indemnity, moral, temperate, and exemplary damages.
Court of Appeals Decision
• The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification:
– Upgraded the killing of Jonabelle from homicide to murder, applying treachery and aberratio ictus.
– Held appellant guilty of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder.
– Imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
– Increased temperate damages and adjusted other damage awards consistent with People v. Jugueta.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Court of Appeals correctly convict appellant of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder, given alleged weaknesses in witness identification and proof of qualifying circumstances?
Supreme Court Ruling
Deference to Credibility Findings
• The Court upheld the lower courts’ acceptance of Gerry’s and Princess’s testimonies. No evidence demonstrated that Gerry’s prior drinking impaired his identification or that Princess’s familial relationship rendered her testimony biased.Qualifying Circumstances: Treachery and Aberratio Ictus
• Treachery requires a sudden, unexpected attack on an unarmed victim. Appellant’s frontal, unprovoked firing met this standard as to Gerry.
• Under Article 4 (aberratio ictus), criminal liability extends to all natural and direct consequences of the felonious act. Though Jonabelle was not the intended target, her death resulted directly from appellant’s treacherous assault.Complex Crime and Penalty
• Article 6 defines attempted felony; Article 248 defines murder with qualifying circumstances; Article 48 provides that a single act constituting multiple crimes is punished by the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period.
• The most s
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235016)
Facts of the Case
- On December 24, 2011, around midnight in Muntinlupa City, Gerry Marasigan joined a drinking spree at a friend’s house and later returned home with his wife.
- Outside his front door, Gerry encountered appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo (alias “Tan”), a neighbor of Gerry’s mother, who suddenly drew a handgun and fired at Gerry from an arm’s-length distance.
- The shot missed Gerry, struck his seven-year-old daughter Jonabelle Marasigan in the chest (causing her death the following day), and wounded Gerry’s sister Princess Marasigan in the leg.
- Gerry and Princess positively identified appellant as the shooter; appellant claimed an alibi, testifying he was in Samar on the date in question.
Procedural Antecedents
- Appellant was charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with murder under the Revised Penal Code.
- The Regional Trial Court (Branch 207, Muntinlupa) found appellant guilty of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty (twelve years of prison mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum) and awarding civil and moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages to Jonabelle’s heirs.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification: it held appellant guilty of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder, imposed reclusion perpetua, and adjusted the damage awards.
- Appellant filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, urging acquittal on grounds of alleged witness incapacity (due to intoxication) and bias.
Issue
- Whether the Court of App