G.R. No. 216056 - People vs. Bernardo y Ferdez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216056)

Factual Background

On 25 May 2001, at about six o’clock in the morning, Roger Arquero (victim) and his brother-in-law, Rolando Licupa, walked across a rice paddy. According to Licupa, the accused-appellant suddenly emerged from a hilly portion of the field and shot the victim with a homemade shotgun, striking him in the lower abdomen. Licupa and a bystander, Dionisio Evangelista, aided the wounded victim and brought him to a relative’s house and then to St. Paul Hospital, but the victim died the same day. The victim allegedly told his wife that the accused-appellant was the shooter. Medical testimony by Dr. Honorario Reyes indicated that the victim sustained wounds that perforated the small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder, and the record reflects that the victim suffered nine gunshot wounds.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution relied on Licupa’s in-court identification of the accused-appellant as the person who suddenly appeared from the hilly portion and fired at the victim. Licupa prepared a sketch showing relative locations in the ricefield. The victim’s wife testified to the victim’s statement identifying the accused-appellant as his assailant. The medico-legal officer explained the fatal nature of the victim’s wounds. The prosecution also introduced a Certification from the Firearms and Explosive Division of the Philippine National Police indicating that the accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder.

Version of the Defense

The accused-appellant testified that at the time of the incident he was at home with his family and that a group including the victim and others fired at his house. He claimed that the attack was motivated by revenge for his prior conviction in 1991 for killing the victim’s brothers, that his family was ordered out of the house before gunfire, and that he avoided bullets by dropping to the ground. He maintained that the victim was shot by his companion, Licupa, and asserted that he reported the incident to the police.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole, and ordered payment of specified damages with legal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision on 20 May 2014, giving credence to Licupa’s testimony and to the victim’s statement to his wife and to police, and appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm.

Issues on Appeal

In his appeal, the accused-appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the physical evidence—specifically the nine gunshot wounds—was inconsistent with Licupa’s testimony that he heard only one gunshot. The Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney’s Office declined to file supplemental briefs and asked that the briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals be considered.

Court’s Analysis on the Sufficiency of the Information

The Court reviewed whether the Information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The Court reiterated the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge and the requirement that an Information must properly allege circumstances that qualify or aggravate the crime. Citing People v. Valdez and related jurisprudence, the Court explained that when a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is alleged, the ultimate facts supporting it must be set forth; otherwise the accused must timely seek a bill of particulars under Section nine of Rule 116 or move to quash under Rule 117. The Court found that the Information here merely recited “with evident premeditation and treachery” without factual averments but that the accused-appellant did not file a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars before arraignment and participated in trial; accordingly, the defect was deemed waived and could be considered against him on proof at trial.

Admissibility and Weight of the Dying Declaration

The Court examined the victim’s out‑of‑court statement to his wife identifying the accused-appellant and treated it as a dying declaration admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The Court outlined the requisites for admissibility: the statement must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; the declarant must have been under the consciousness of impending death; the declarant must have been competent as a witness had he survived; and the declaration must be offered in a criminal case where the declarant is the victim. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the victim’s statement identified the shooter, that the nature and number of wounds justified a presumption that the victim was conscious of impending death, that there was no evidence of incompetence had the victim lived, and that the declaration was offered in the prosecution for murder. The Court thus gave the dying declaration significant evidentiary weight.

Findings on Identity and Credibility

The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant shot the victim. The Court accepted Licupa’s testimony, including his sketch, and credited the victim’s dying declaration to his wife. The Court rejected the accused-appellant’s attempt to discredit the prosecution’s version, noting that the accused-appellant did not present evidence sufficient to overturn the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA. The Court also explained that one shotgun discharge may cause multiple injuries owing to pellets, which accounted for the nine wounds and did not negate the testimony that only a single shot was heard.

Treachery and Use of Unlicensed Firearm

The Court held that treachery was proven. Quoting the statutory definition, the Court noted the two elements of treachery: that the victim was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself at the time of the attack and that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of attack. The Court found both elements satisfied by the accused-appellant’s

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216056)

Parties and Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted the criminal action for homicide and appealed through the regular course of review.
ROBERTO BERNARDO y FERNANDEZ was the accused-appellant convicted below and appealed to the Court.
The case came on appeal from the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04486 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court conviction.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal in a decision rendered by the Court on the case record presented on appeal.

Key Facts

On May 25, 2001, while walking in a rice field in Solana, Cagayan, victim Roger Arquero sustained multiple gunshot wounds and died the same day.
Witness Rolando Licupa testified that the accused suddenly appeared from a hilly portion of the field and fired a homemade shotgun at the victim.
The victim told his wife that the accused was the shooter before he was brought to the hospital, and the victim later died that day.
The medico-legal officer testified that the victim’s wounds perforated the small intestines, colon, and urinary bladder.
The accused testified that earlier the same morning his house had been fired upon by several persons and that he avoided the bullets by dropping to the ground, and contended that Licupa shot the victim.
The prosecution presented a Firearms and Explosive Division certification that the accused was not a licensed firearm holder.

Procedural History

An Information dated July 26, 2001 charged the accused with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659.
The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on February 6, 2002, and trial on the merits followed.
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment convicting the accused of murder and imposing reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole and ordering damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a May 20, 2014 decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04486.
The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued the decision reviewed in this syllabus.

Issues

Whether the evidence established that the accused was the person who shot and killed the victim.
Whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm.
Whether the Information’s allegation of “with evident premeditation and treachery” was fatally defective for lack of supporting factual averments and whether any defect was timely raised.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm as found by the lower courts.
The accused was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without eligibility for