G.R. No. 201572 - People vs. Delfin

Case Summary (G.R. No. 201572)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Fatal shooting occurred on or about 27 September 2000 (as established by the prosecution).
Appellant was formally charged on 13 March 2001.
RTC conviction: Decision dated 20 July 2009 (trial court found appellant guilty of murder).
Court of Appeals: Affirmed conviction with modification (dates in the prompt vary between 29 April 2011 and 29 April 2012; CA judgment replaced consequential damages with moral damages).
Supreme Court final decision: G.R. No. 201572, dated 9 July 2014 (thus the 1987 Constitution governs constitutional issues).

Applicable Law

Murder under Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code (treachery as qualifying circumstance).
Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sections 6 and 11 (sufficiency of information; approximation of date).
Rules on amendment of information (Rule 110, Section 14).
Constitutional guarantee (under the 1987 Constitution) to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; the Court’s analysis applied these protections in assessing whether the variance in dates prejudiced the accused.

Factual Background

On the night of 27 September 2000, Emilio Enriquez was shot dead at a store across his residence in Navotas City. Joan Cruz observed Emilio at the store talking on the phone, saw the appellant seated nearby, heard a gunshot, then witnessed the appellant holding a gun and firing another shot at Emilio. The medico‑legal report confirmed two fatal gunshot wounds to the head and chest.

Charges and Plea

An information for murder (Article 248) was filed against the appellant. The information mistakenly alleged the date of commission as “on or about the 27th day of November 2000,” while the prosecution evidence and supporting documentary attachments consistently referred to 27 September 2000. The appellant pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

Prosecution Evidence

Joan Cruz: positive, clear, and credible eyewitness identification of appellant as the shooter; testified there was no provocation and that the attack was sudden.
Dr. Marquez: medico‑legal report established two gunshot wounds (head and chest) causing death.
Documentary attachments to the information (Office of the City Prosecutor’s resolution and Joan’s sworn statement) consistently referenced 27 September 2000.

Defense Evidence and Alibi

Appellant testified he was fishing in the seas of Bataan from 3:00 p.m. on 27 September 2000 until about 4:00 a.m. the following day.
Rene Villanueva initially corroborated the alibi but later admitted the fishing trip dates were different (leaving 3:00 p.m. on 26 September and returning 4:00 p.m. on 27 September), placing both him and the appellant in Navotas at the time of the shooting. The inconsistencies undermined the alibi’s credibility.

RTC and CA Findings

RTC (Branch 170) found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder with treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua; awarded P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 consequential damages.
CA affirmed the conviction, deleted consequential damages, and replaced them with P50,000 moral damages. The CA and RTC accepted Joan’s testimony as credible and found the alibi unavailing.

Issue on Appeal

The principal issues raised by appellant were: (1) invalidity of the information due to the variance in alleged date (November 27, 2000 in the information vs. September 27, 2000 in evidence); (2) the sufficiency and credibility of the alibi; and (3) whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.

Legal Rule on Variance of Date

The Court applied Rule 110, Sections 6 and 11: the date of commission need not be stated with exactness unless it is a material element of the offense. An information is sufficient if it states the approximate date. Generally, an erroneous date in the information is not fatal where the evidence and supporting documents clearly show the same offense and the variance does not prejudice the accused’s ability to prepare a defense. A variance becomes fatal only when it is so great that it suggests the information and the evidence refer to different offenses (People v. Opemia and related jurisprudence).

Application of the Variance Rule to the Case

The Supreme Court found the variance to be a clerical error limited to the month in the information. All attachments to the information (prosecutor’s resolution, Joan’s sworn statement) referred to 27 September 2000. Appellant did not object at trial to this evidence and mounted an alibi in direct response to the prosecution’s case. The Court concluded there was no surprise or prejudice; the information and evidence plainly related to the same offense. Therefore, the erroneous month in the information was deemed supplanted by the proof at trial and not fatal to prosecution.

Evaluation of the Alibi and Witness Credibility

The Court accorded respect to the trial court’s factual findings and determination of witness credibility, consistent with established doctrine that such findings are given high respect unless shown to be neglectful of material facts. Joan’s testimony was found to be positive, straightforward, and credible; a single credible eyewitness is sufficient for conviction. The alibi failed because the defense did not prove physical impossibility of the appellant’s presence at the crime scene; Rene’s inconsistent statements furth

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201572)

Case Citation and Introductory Details

Reported at 738 Phil. 811, Second Division, G.R. No. 201572, dated July 09, 2014; decision authored by Justice Perez.
The appeal is from a Court of Appeals (CA) decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04160; the rollo notes the CA decision was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
The appeal was filed by ordinary appeal pursuant to Section 3(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court decision lists Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., as concurring.

Procedural History

Incident date established at trial: 27 September 2000 (date on which Emilio Enriquez was shot).
Appellant Rael Delfin was formally charged by information on 13 March 2001 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon; case docketed as Criminal Case No. 24311-MN and raffled to Branch 170.
The information alleged the offense was committed "on or about the 27th day of November 2000" in Navotas, Metro Manila — a discrepancy later contested on appeal.
At arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty; trial proceeded with prosecution and defense witnesses presented.
On 20 July 2009, the RTC (decision penned by Judge Hector B. Almeyda) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248(1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 consequential damages.
The CA rendered a decision affirming the conviction and modifying damages: deleting consequential damages of P50,000.00 and awarding P50,000.00 moral damages (CA decision date referenced in the rollo both as 29 April 2011 and 29 April 2012 in different parts of the source).
The Supreme Court review (this appeal) affirms the conviction with modifications to the damages award.

Facts as Found at Trial (Prosecution Evidence)

Victim: Emilio Enriquez, 51-year-old fisherman from Navotas City, was gunned down at a store across his home.
Eyewitness and prosecution witness: Joan Cruz (Joan), live-in partner of the victim.
- Joan testified she was outside Emilio’s house at around 10:45 p.m. on 27 September 2000 and saw Emilio talking on the telephone at a store across from his house.
- The appellant was also at the store seated to the left of Emilio.
- After Joan went inside the house, she heard a gunshot, rushed out, saw Emilio shot in the head and sprawled on the ground; she then saw the appellant holding a gun and firing another shot at Emilio.
- Joan stated she was unaware of any prior misunderstanding or any prior altercation or words exchanged between Emilio and appellant before the shooting.
Medical testimony: Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, Philippine National Police physician, performed post mortem and issued Medico-Legal Report No. M-608-00.
- The medico-legal report revealed Emilio died from two gunshot wounds: one penetrating the left side of the head and another penetrating the chest.
- Dr. Marquez affirmed the contents of his report at trial.
Documentary attachments to the information (Resolution of Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon-Navotas sub-station and Joan’s Sworn Statement) referred to the murder as having been committed on 27 September 2000.

Defense Case and Alibi Evidence

Appellant testified in his own defense, claiming alibi: he was fishing in the seas of Bataan on the date and time of the supposed shooting.
- Appellant stated he left for the seas at about 3:00 p.m. of 27 September 2000 and returned around 4:00 a.m. the next day.
Defense witness Rene Villanueva (Rene), one of three companions on the fishing trip, initially corroborated appellant’s testimony.
- Later, Rene changed his testimony, admitting that he, the appellant, and companions actually left for the fishing trip at 3:00 p.m. of 26 September 2000 (not 27th) and returned to shore at 4:00 p.m. of 27 September 2000 (not 28th), establishing that at the time of the shooting on the evening of 27 September 2000, Rene and the appellant were already in Navotas City.

Information Charged and Statutory Provision

The information charged murder under Article 248(1) of Act No. 3815, the Revised Penal Code, alleging intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation, and that the accused armed with a gun shot Emilio Enriquez inflicting fatal wounds.
Article 248 (as quoted in the source) defines murder and enumerates attendant circumstances, including treachery, which, if present, qualify the killing as murder punishable by reclusion temporal up to death (text as stated in the source).

Trial Court Findings and Rationale

The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248(1) of the RPC.
The RTC concluded the appellant was the perpetrator and that treachery qualified the offense.
Sentencing by RTC: reclusion