Case Summary (G.R. No. 200026)
Charges and Initial Proceedings
On October 2, 1997, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Samar charged Armando with murder, asserting he acted with deliberate intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation when he shot Vicente. The prosecution based its argument on eyewitness testimonies, particularly from Vicente's son, Arnel, and a bystander, Raymond Reyes, who identified Armando as the shooter.
Accused's Defense
In his defense, Armando claimed the shooting was accidental, supported by his own son’s testimony. According to him, Vicente had followed him to their mother’s house, confronting him aggressively, which led to a struggle for the gun between them. He asserted that the firearm discharged accidentally during this altercation.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
The RTC rejected the defense of accident, finding Armando guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment), along with moral and actual damages to Vicente's heirs. The RTC cited the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as credible and consistent, leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Upon appeal, Armando argued that the RTC erred in crediting the prosecution's witnesses and in convicting him of murder. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling but modified the amount of moral damages to ₱50,000. The CA assessed the evidences, deeming the accident claim implausible, particularly noting that Armando's actions during the confrontation undermined his assertion of acting in self-defense or accidentally.
Analyzing the Exempting Circumstance of Accident
The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts that the accident exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code could not be applied. The requisite for its acknowledgment — performing a lawful act with due care and causing unintentional injury — was not met as Armando did not demonstrate due care; rather, the nature of the gun's mechanism indicated deliberate action was involved, leading to the conclusion that the gun did not fire accidentally.
Evaluation of the Information Filed
The Supreme Court identified a significant legal flaw regarding the charge. The elements of treachery and evident premeditation, as claimed in the information, lacked sufficient factual basis. The Court noted that simply asserting these terms without elaborating on the actions underpinning them rendered the indictment insufficient. The
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200026)
Case Overview
- The case concerns the fatal shooting of Vicente Delector by his brother Armando Delector, who claimed the shooting was accidental.
- The trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) found Armando guilty of murder, qualified by treachery, leading him to appeal the decision.
Antecedents
- The incident occurred on August 8, 1997, around 6:00 PM, in Barangay Diaz, Gandara, Samar.
- Vicente was talking with another brother, Antolin, when Armando shot him twice from their mother’s house.
- Vicente was first treated at the Gandara District Hospital and later transferred to the Samar Provincial Hospital, where he died early the next morning.
- Vicente's son, Arnel, identified Armando as the shooter, which was corroborated by witness Raymond Reyes who also observed the shooting.
Charges and Defense
- On October 2, 1997, Armando was charged with murder, alleging he acted with deliberate intent, treachery, and evident premeditation.
- Armando’s defense was based on the assertion that the shooting was accidental, claiming he was trying to wrest the gun from Vicente during a confrontation.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- The RTC found Armando guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and awarding damages to Vicente’s heirs.
- The RTC emphasized the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses an