Case Summary (G.R. No. 200026)
Procedural History
The Provincial Prosecutor filed information charging Armando with murder (alleging deliberate intent, treachery, and evident premeditation). The RTC convicted Armando of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with indemnities and damages. The CA affirmed the conviction but increased moral damages. Armando appealed to the Supreme Court.
Accused’s Defense
Armando claimed the shooting was accidental while grappling with Vicente for control of a gun. His son Arnel corroborated this account, asserting that Armando acted to wrest the firearm from Vicente, and that the weapon accidentally discharged.
RTC and CA Findings on Credibility and Accident
Both the RTC and CA rejected the accident defense and found the prosecution witnesses credible. The courts emphasized that direct eyewitness identifications by Arnel and Raymond, corroborated by Dr. Taningco’s account of the victim’s own identification, constituted compelling evidence of Armando’s guilt. The CA found the accident account improbable because a revolver typically requires deliberate pressure on the trigger, two shots were fired, and the location of the wounds and Armando’s subsequent conduct (lack of aid or inquiry) were inconsistent with an accidental discharge during a bona fide struggle.
Standard of Review on Factual Findings
The Supreme Court acknowledged and applied the established rule that trial court factual findings, particularly credibility assessments, are given great weight because the trial judge observed witness demeanor first-hand. Such findings are generally final unless there is a demonstrable error in appreciation or misapprehension of facts—none of which the Court found in the present testimonial record to warrant overturning the RTC’s credibility determinations.
Analysis of Accident as an Exempting Circumstance
The Court reviewed Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code on accident as an exempting circumstance and identified its elements: lawful act performed with due care, causing injury by mere accident, without fault or intention. The accused failed to prove that he acted with due care and without fault. The fact that the revolver discharged twice, the nature and placement of wounds, and the accused’s conduct immediately after the shooting made the accidental-discharge explanation implausible under ordinary human behavior and the technical nature of revolvers. Therefore, accident could not be appreciated as an exempting circumstance.
Sufficiency of the Information and the Distinction between Murder and Homicide
Although the factual evidence established that Armando shot and killed Vicente, the Supreme Court focused on whether the information properly charged murder by alleging the factual elements supporting qualifying circumstances (treachery and evident premeditation). Under Section 9, Rule 110, the sufficiency of the information is judged by the facts pleaded in the body, not by mere conclusory labels in the caption. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the prosecutor’s legal characterization (naming the offense as “murder” and inserting terms such as “treachery” or “evident premeditation”) cannot substitute for factual averments showing the elements of those aggravating circumstances. Treachery, for example, requires factual allegations that the means or methods employed afforded the victim no opportunity to defend or retaliate and that such means were deliberately adopted. The information in this case did not allege the specific factual circumstances necessary to establish treachery or evident premeditation; it stated those terms in conclusion only.
Legal Effect of Insufficient Factual Averments
Because the information failed to allege the requisite facts supporting treachery or evident premeditation, the accused could not be lawfully convicted of murder. The Court emphasized the constitutional and procedural principle that an accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to prepare an adequate defense; convicting for an offense not properly charged would violate that principle. Consequently, although the facts proven at trial showed an unlawful killing, the correct legal characterization consistent with the pleaded facts was homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
Conviction Reduced to Homicide and Sentence
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to homicide. Under Article 249, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence with the minimum derived from prision mayor and the maximum from the medium period of reclusion temporal: nine (9) years of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200026)
Case Caption, Citation and Court Composition
- Reported at 819 Phil. 310; Third Division; G.R. No. 200026; Decision promulgated October 4, 2017.
- Decision penned by Justice Bersamin; concurrence by Justices Velasco, Jr., Leonen, Martires, and Gesmundo in the final disposition. (Source entries identify Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and others in the Court of Appeals decision at earlier stages; Supreme Court disposition rendered October 4, 2017, with related notices received October 25, 2017.)
- Parties: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Armando Delector (Accused-Appellant).
Relevant Dates and Procedural Stages
- Factual incident: August 8, 1997 (about 6:00 p.m.) shooting; victim succumbed about 1:00 a.m. on the following day.
- Information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor: October 2, 1997.
- Preventive detention commenced: November 19, 1997 (Sub-Provincial Jail, Calbayog City).
- RTC decision convicting accused of murder: March 17, 2003 (Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Gandara, Samar).
- CA decision affirming RTC (with modification increasing moral damages): promulgated September 22, 2006.
- Supreme Court decision: promulgated October 4, 2017; notice received by the Court’s office October 25, 2017.
- Administrative directive to the Bureau of Corrections to implement release and report compliance within ten days from notice.
Factual Antecedents (Stated Facts and Witness Accounts)
- On August 8, 1997 at about 6:00 p.m., the late Vicente Delector was talking with Antolin (his brother) near Vicente’s residence in Barangay Diaz, Gandara, Samar when the accused, another brother (Armando Delector), shot Vicente twice.
- Vicente was transported to Gandara District Hospital where Dr. Leonida Taningco attended him; he was later transferred to Samar Provincial Hospital and died at about 1:00 a.m. the following day.
- Witness identifications:
- Arnel Delector (Vicente’s son) positively identified the accused as the assailant; attested the accused fired the gun from their mother’s house and hit his father while Vicente was conversing with Antolin.
- Raymond Reyes (came from school), a disinterested witness, corroborated that Vicente was conversing with Antolin when the accused shot him twice.
- Dr. Leonida Taningco recalled that the victim told the police investigator that it was the accused who had shot him — a corroborative statement recorded by the attending physician.
- The weapon involved was a revolver.
Charge (Text and Allegations in the Information)
- The information filed in RTC (October 2, 1997) alleged that on or about August 8, 1997 at about 6:00 p.m., at Barangay Diaz, Gandara, Samar, the accused, "with deliberate intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation," willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and shot Vicente Delector with a firearm (revolver) which the accused had "conveniently provided himself for the purpose," inflicting mortal wounds that caused Vicente’s death — charging the crime as murder, contrary to law.
- The information used the terms "deliberate intent to kill," "treachery," and "evident premeditation" in its allegations.
Accused’s Defense (Accident Narrative; Corroboration by Accused’s Son)
- Accused’s consistent defense at trial: the shooting was accidental during a lawful act to pacify and wrest a gun from Vicente.
- Accused’s version of events (as testified and corroborated by his son, Arnel):
- Vicente went to the accused’s house looking for him; accused had gone to their mother’s house to avoid confrontation.
- Vicente followed, dared him to come out; Antolin intervened to pacify Vicente.
- Vicente allegedly attacked Antolin; accused went out, observed Vicente holding a gun, attempted to wrest control of the gun, and during a forceful grapple the gun accidentally fired.
- Accused and his son asserted the wound to Vicente was caused by an accidental discharge during that struggle.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Disposition
- RTC found accused Armando Delector guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
- RTC ordered indemnification to the heirs of Vicente Delector: Php50,000.00; actual damages Php12,000.00; moral damages Php30,000.00; and costs.
- RTC directed the Warden of Sub-Provincial Jail, Calbayog City, to immediately transmit the living body of the accused to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City for detention, with credit for preventive detention subject to applicable rules and Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
- The accused appealed claiming (1) erroneous full faith and credence to prosecution testimony, and (2) erroneous finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder.
- The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision with modification: increase of moral damages to Php50,000.00.
- CA rationale (excerpted reasoning applied by the CA and discussed by the Supreme Court):
- Rejected the exempting circumstance of accident as highly improbable under the circumstances.
- Observed that it was unlikely the accused, if unarmed, would intentionally grapple with an armed person (Vicente) because such act contradicts ordinary human inclination for self-preservation.
- Even if acting to defend Antolin, accused’s alleged failure to help the wounded victim (who was his brother) cast doubt on accident defense.
- Noted that a revolver is not prone to accidental firing because of its mechanism; considerable pressure on the trigger must be applied for discharge — and here there were two shots.
Issues Raised on Final Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Accused’s assignments of error to the Supreme Court:
- I. The lower courts erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
- II. The lower courts erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
- Office of the Solicitor General’s appellee brief: maintained sufficiency of evidence of guilt but recommended conviction for homicide rather than murder, asserting the record did not support deliberate adoption of a method of attack to ensure death nor evident premeditation.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of Evidence and Credibility
- Supreme Court affirmed that the lower courts correctly preferred prosecution witnesses (Arnel and Raymond) over the accused and his son, because:
- Arnel and Raymond positively identified the accused as the assailant; their identification constituted direct evidence of the commission of the crime.
- Dr. Taningco’s recollection that Vicente