G.R. No. 235016 - People vs. Bendecio y Viejo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235016)

Prosecution Evidence and Version of Events

Gerry testified that after attending a drinking session on the night in question, he returned home with his wife, encountered appellant briefly earlier that night, and later, as he was closing his front door, noticed appellant standing just outside the doorway. Gerry stated the appellant suddenly drew a handgun, aimed at him, and fired. The shot missed Gerry, struck his daughter Jonabelle in the chest (fatally) and later Princess, who sustained a leg wound. Princess corroborated that she saw appellant holding and firing the gun because of the available light by the front door, that appellant fired once, and that both she and Jonabelle bled after the shot.

Defense Evidence and Version of Events

Appellant testified in his own behalf, asserting an alibi that he was in Samat, Samar at the time of the shooting. He denied knowledge of any motive and claimed only a casual acquaintance with Gerry. The defense presented no other corroborating evidence to support the alibi or to impeach the prosecution witnesses’ identification.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 207, Muntinlupa) accepted the positive testimonies of Gerry and Princess as straightforward and credible, rejected appellant’s denial and alibi as uncorroborated and self‑serving, and found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide. The trial court imposed an indeterminate penalty and awarded civil indemnity, moral, temperate and exemplary damages to the heirs of the deceased, with interest.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modification

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. It found appellant guilty of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder and increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The CA also adjusted the quantum of damages awarded to the heirs of Jonabelle and confirmed awards for the injured victim. The CA upheld the trial court’s credibility findings, concluding that appellant failed to present evidence to show that Gerry’s alleged intoxication impaired his identification or that Princess was biased to the degree that her testimony was unreliable.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The principal legal issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting appellant of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder, considering challenges to witness credibility and the legal classification of the offenses and attendant circumstances.

Legal Elements Examined — Murder and Attempt

The Court reiterated the elements of murder under Article 248 RPC (killing, causation by the accused, attendant qualifying circumstance, and exclusion of parricide/infanticide) and the definition of attempt under Article 6 RPC (commencing the commission of a felony by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution for reasons other than voluntary desistance). The Court applied prior jurisprudence (e.g., Palaganas) to show that intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in an assault and that attempted murder is established where the accused commenced execution with intent but did not consummate the killing.

Credibility of Witnesses and Weight of Evidence

The Court emphasized the general rule that appellate courts will not lightly disturb findings on witness credibility made by trial courts, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The trial court was held to be in the best position to observe demeanor and assess testimony. Appellant offered only bare assertions to impugn Gerry’s identification (alleged intoxication) and Princess’s impartiality (relationship to the intended victim), and therefore the Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ credibility determinations. Consequently, the positive and consistent testimonies of Gerry and Princess prevailed over appellant’s denial and uncorroborated alibi.

Treachery and Its Application to Intended and Actual Victims

The Court analyzed treachery as a qualifying circumstance requiring (1) employment of means or manner ensuring the offender’s safety from defense or retaliation and (2) conscious choice of such means. Treachery is characterized by a sudden, unexpected attack on an unguarded and unsuspecting victim. The Court found that treachery attended the attempted killing of Gerry because appellant drew and fired a gun suddenly at an unarmed Gerry standing at his doorway, leaving Gerry no opportunity to defend himself. The Court further concluded that treachery could be appreciated in respect of the death of Jonabelle under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, citing People v. Flora and related authorities: although Jonabelle was not the intended target, the sudden attack rendered victims helpless and the natural and direct consequence of appellant’s felonious assault was Jonabelle’s death.

Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow) and Criminal Liability

Invoking Article 4 RPC and the doctrine of aberratio ictus, the Court held that where the accused’s wrongful act results in consequences different from what he intended, criminal liability still attaches for the natural and logical consequences. Appellant’s misdirected shot that killed Jonabelle was a direct res

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235016)

The Case — Nature and Procedural Posture

Appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39046 affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan" for the complex crime of attempted murder with murder.
Final adjudication by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 235016; decision penned by Justice Lazaro-Javier on September 08, 2020.
The appeal seeks acquittal of the accused; both parties adopted their briefs filed before the Court of Appeals in lieu of supplemental briefs before the Supreme Court.

Antecedents — The Information / Charge

Appellant was charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with murder for acts alleged to have occurred on or about December 24, 2011 in Muntinlupa City.
The Information alleged that appellant, with intent to kill and armed with a handgun and employing treachery, suddenly attacked and fired at Gerry Marasigan y Campit but failed to hit him; the bullet instead hit seven-year-old Jonabelle Marasigan (born November 1, 2004) and also wounded Princess Marasigan, resulting in Jonabelle’s death.
The Information alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance and invoked the conceptual framework for a complex crime where a single act produced two or more felonies.

Arraignment and Plea

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
Trial proceeded with presentation of witnesses for the prosecution and appellant testifying for the defense.

Trial Proceedings — Witnesses and Evidence

Prosecution presented as principal witnesses: Gerry Marasigan and Princess Marasigan.
Appellant was the lone witness for the defense and asserted denial and an alibi (stating he was in Samat, Samar on the date of the incident).
Princess filed a separate criminal case against appellant for her injury.

Prosecution’s Version — Material Facts as Testified

Gerry Marasigan: On December 24, 2011, after attending a drinking session, he and his wife returned home; upon leaving a friend’s home he bumped into appellant who addressed him with a hostile remark. Later, as Gerry was closing his front door, he noticed appellant standing an arm’s length away; appellant suddenly drew a gun, aimed at Gerry and fired. The shot missed Gerry and instead hit his seven-year-old daughter Jonabelle (fatally) and his sister Princess (wounded). Gerry stated they had no prior altercation and that he recognized appellant as his mother’s neighbor.
Princess Marasigan: Testified she saw appellant holding and firing a gun in Gerry’s direction around 11:00 PM; she clearly observed appellant because of the light by the front door; she and Jonabelle hid in the bathroom and later realized they were both bleeding; appellant fired once and the single bullet pierced Jonabelle’s chest and then Princess’s leg.

Defense’s Version — Appellant’s Testimony

Appellant testified that he was in Samat, Samar on the date of the alleged shooting incident and that he only knew Gerry because his sister’s paupahan was next to Gerry’s house.
Appellant denied having motive and offered an alibi; no corroborating evidence of alibi was presented in the record.

Trial Court Ruling — Regional Trial Court, Branch 207, Muntinlupa City

Decision dated July 19, 2016 found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide (as recorded by the trial court).
Imposed an indeterminate penalty: twelve years of prison mayor in its maximum as the minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal in its maximum as the maximum period.
Ordered payment to the heirs of Jonabelle Marasigan: P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages, P30,000.00 temperate damages, and P75,000.00 exemplary damages, all with 6% interest per annum from finality.
Trial court credited the positive, straightforward, candid, and convincing testimonies of Gerry and Princess and rejected appellant’s denial and alibi as self-serving and uncorroborated.
Trial court characterized appellant’s single act as constituting a complex crime because a single criminal intent resulted in both attempted murder (Gerry) and homicide (Jonabelle).

Court of Appeals — Proceedings and Appellant’s Contentions

Appellant contended that the testimonies of Gerry and Princess were doubtful: Gerry had joined a drinking session (argued to impair his capacity for positive identification) and Princess was biased due to blood relationship to Gerry.
Appellant argued the trial court erred in relying on those testimonies to convict him.
The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction, arguing that the trial court’s credibility determinations merited respect and that the defense failed to prove impairment of identification or bias.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling (Assailed Decision) — August 17, 2017

The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed with modification: found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The CA modified the damages: ordered P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary dama