Case Summary (G.R. No. 166479)
Accused’s defenses (denial and alibi)
Petitioner denied shooting the complainant and asserted alibi: he said he spent the night of April 18, 1998 at a friend’s house in Lingayen, left the next morning by car with one Berting Soriano, alighted at the corner of Banaoang diversion road, then rode a tricycle intending to go to Bayambang. He alleged that while en route to Calasiao a jeep blew its horn, three men in the jeep (identifying themselves as policemen) approached, confiscated his gun and detained him, and later lodged him at the City Jail. He also produced a license for the seized .45 pistol (Exhibit 2). Petitioner argued the prosecution failed to establish identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, that Barangay Captain Dacasin (who reportedly described the shooter as wearing a vest) was not presented, and that no ballistic report linked the spent shells to the recovered firearm.
Procedural history and relief sought
Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; he was released on surety bail (P120,000) on order of the RTC pending trial and later posted bail of P160,000 pending appeal. The RTC (Branch 41, Dagupan City) convicted petitioner of attempted murder on June 29, 1999 and sentenced him under the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed on July 30, 2004; reconsideration was denied on December 21, 2004. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court raising errors in the CA’s affirmation and denial of reconsideration.
Jurisdictional and standard-of-review frame under Rule 45
The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 45 review is discretionary and limited: this Court will not ordinarily reweigh factual findings settled by the Court of Appeals. Reexamination of facts is permitted only where there is clear and convincing proof that the Court of Appeals’ judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court failed to appreciate relevant facts of substance that would justify a different conclusion, or where there was grave abuse in appreciation of evidence. The Court reiterated that the trial court’s opportunity to observe witness demeanor gives its factual findings strong probative value, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Credibility and positive identification — analysis and ruling
The Supreme Court found no reason to depart from the trial court’s findings as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It gave full weight to the testimonies of private complainant Frederick Maramba and Armando Maramba: the victim saw petitioner alight from the tricycle and shoot at him at a distance of about four meters; the victim chased 25–30 meters while being fired upon and later identified petitioner at the City Jail; Armando, who drove the tricycle carrying petitioner, witnessed the shooting and identified petitioner at the police station and in an affidavit. The Supreme Court held that these positive identifications, supported by events immediately following the shooting (seizure of firearm and magazines, recovery of live ammunitions, and recovery of spent shells at or near the scene), sufficiently established petitioner’s identity as the assailant beyond reasonable doubt.
Alibi and denial evaluated against positive identification
The Court treated denial and alibi as weak defenses in the face of affirmative eyewitness identification. It applied settled principles: a bare denial must be fortified by strong evidence of non-culpability to be persuasive; alibi must show it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the locus criminis at the material time to succeed. Here, the Court accepted the RTC’s finding that it was not physically impossible for petitioner to be at the crime scene (the place he allegedly alighted from Soriano’s car was roughly a ten-minute ride away). Given the credible positive identifications by two witnesses, petitioner’s alibi and denial failed to overcome the prosecution’s proof.
Treachery and the characterization of the offense as attempted murder
The Court examined treachery as an aggravating circumstance defined by two essential elements: (a) the victim was not in a position to defend himself at the time of the attack; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted a means of attack that ensured the victim had no opportunity to resist. The Court found that petitioner “suddenly” fired on the unarmed complainant who was washing his jeep; the surprise and method of attack left the complainant no option but to run. The Court concluded that petitioner manifested intent to kill by repeatedly firing (seven shots were alleged), but failed to perform all acts necessary to produce death due to reasons independent of his will (poor aim, victim’s swiftness); the wound inflicted was insufficient to cause death. Consequently, the appropriate crime was attempted murder, not attempted homicide, and treachery was correctly appreciated by the trial court.
Ballistic report, alleged suppression of evidence, and omission of Barangay Captain Dacasin
Petitioner argued suppression of evidence because Barangay Captain Dacasin (who reportedly relayed that the shooter wore a vest) was not called and because no ballistic report was introduced linking the seven spent shells to the seized firearm. The Court rejected both contentions. Dacasin was not an eyewitness of the shooting and only relayed information from Armando Maramba; therefore his testimony would have been cumulative and not material to identification. Further, a ballistic report is corroborative and useful particularly where eyewitness testimony is lacking; it is not a prerequisite for conviction. Where identity is established by credible eyewitnesses and the corpus delicti is
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 166479)
Title, Court and Decision Information
- Full style of case as taken from the source: "RODOLFO C. VELASCO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT."
- Reported at 518 Phil. 780, First Division; G.R. No. 166479; Decision dated February 28, 2006.
- Opinion authored by Justice Chico-Nazario; Panganiban, C.J., with Justices Ynares‑Santiago, Austria‑Martinez and Callejo, Sr., concurring.
- Petition is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside:
- The Court of Appeals decision in CA‑G.R. CR No. 23366 dated 30 July 2004 affirming the trial court; and
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City decision in Criminal Case No. 98‑02175‑D dated 29 June 1999 finding petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder; and
- The Court of Appeals Resolution dated 21 December 2004 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Parties
- Petitioner/Accused: Rodolfo C. Velasco (also referred to as SN I Rodolfo C. Velasco).
- Private complainant/Victim: Frederick Maramba.
- Prosecution/Respondent: People of the Philippines, represented in the Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
- Material eyewitness/prosecution witness: Armando Maramba (tricycle driver).
- Other persons mentioned in record: Barangay Captain Dacasin (Lasip Grande), police officers SPO4 Romulo Villamil, PO3 Rolando Alvendo, and SPO1 Soliven; Dr. Arturo de Vera, Jr.; Berting Soriano (owner of Volkswagen allegedly used by accused).
Charging Instrument and Plea
- Information dated 20 April 1998 charged petitioner with Attempted Murder.
- Charging allegations: On or about 19 April 1998 in Dagupan City, petitioner, being armed with a gun, with treachery and with intent to kill Frederick Maramba, attacked and shot him, hitting him on the left upper arm; the accused had commenced a felony by overt acts but did not perform all acts of execution which could have produced the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
- When arraigned, petitioner, with counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty.
Pretrial Custody and Bail
- Petitioner was released on 29 September 1998 by order of the Executive Judge of the RTC of Dagupan City after a surety bond in the amount of P120,000.00 was posted by Mega Pacific Insurance Corporation.
- Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, petitioner was allowed to post bail in the amount of P160,000.00.
- To prevent flight, the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) was directed to include petitioner in its hold departure list.
Prosecution Evidence (as summarized by the trial court)
- Circumstances of the shooting:
- Date/time: 19 April 1998, about 7:30 a.m.
- Location: in front of Frederick Maramba’s house at Lasip Grande, Dagupan City, while the complainant was cleaning/washing his owner-type jeep.
- A motorized tricycle stopped near the complainant; accused (Velasco) dashed out, approached complainant and fired several times with a .45 caliber pistol.
- First shot missed; second shot hit complainant on the left upper arm causing him to stumble; complainant stood and ran while accused continued firing but missed subsequent shots.
- Private complainant ran 25 to 30 meters while being chased; shooting distance stated by Court as about four meters when initial shots were fired.
- Immediate report and police pursuit:
- The incident was reported to the police sub‑station by Barangay Captain Dacasin, who described the suspect as wearing a vest or "chaleco."
- Police officers (SPO4 Romulo Villamil, PO3 Rolando Alvendo, and SPO1 Soliven) pursued the accused who left on a motorized tricycle toward the highway to Barangay Banaoang in Calasiao town.
- The tricycle was intercepted and the accused brought to the police sub‑station.
- Items recovered from the accused:
- Firearm (Exhibit "A") protruding from the waistline.
- Three magazines (Exhibits "B", "B‑1", and "B‑2").
- Fourteen (14) live ammunitions (Exhibits "C" to "C‑13").
- Items recovered at the crime scene:
- Seven (7) spent ammunitions (Exhibits "D" to "D‑6"), recovered at the scene (trial court finding) though the Court of Appeals’ phrasing as to where the shells were recovered varied slightly.
- Identification and medical evidence:
- At City Jail, private complainant Frederick Maramba positively identified and pointed to petitioner as his assailant and executed an affidavit naming petitioner (Exhibit "H").
- Medical treatment: Complainant hospitalized and treated at Region 1 Medical Center by Dr. Arturo de Vera, Jr., who issued a Medico‑Legal Certificate showing gunshot wound point of entry and exit on the left arm (Exhibit "I").
- Actual damages: hospitalization and medicines totaling P2,696.06 (Exhibits "J" to "J‑14"), which the trial court ordered to be indemnified.
- Testimony of Armando Maramba (tricycle driver):
- Picked up accused wearing a "chaleco" at intersection of Pogo‑Lasip Road.
- Upon reaching parked jeep being washed by complainant, accused ordered him to stop, alighted, and fired several shots at complainant.
- Accused returned to the tricycle and ordered him to proceed to Calasiao.
- Accused later alighted at intersection of De Venecia Highway and Malued Road and took another tricycle.
- Witness executed an affidavit before the Dagupan Police Headquarters (Exhibit "G") and identified accused as the shooter.
Defense Evidence and Contentions
- Petitioner’s primary defenses: denial and alibi.
- Alibi testimony of petitioner:
- April 18, 1998: spent the night at a friend’s house in Lingayen, Pangasinan.
- On April 19, between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m., left Lingayen in the Volkswagen car of Berting Soriano, alighted at corner of Banaoang diversion road, took a tricycle and instructed driver to bring him to the foot of the bridge going to Bayambang.
- While en route to Calasiao he heard a jeep blowing its horn; saw three men on board pointing guns at him; he told the tricycle driver to stop; the three men identified themselves as policemen, confiscated his gun and brought him to police station for interrogation and later to City Jail.
- Denial of personal knowledge and of having fired:
- Petitioner denied knowing the victim personally and denied firing at him.
- Petitioner claimed the .45 caliber pistol seized from him was licensed (Exhibit "2").
- Additional contentions raised on appeal:
- Trial court precipitously labeled alibi weak.
- Trial court did not consider absence of proof of intent to kill.
- Victim and accused were strangers to each other.
- Allegation the case was a frame‑up.
- Suppression of evidence: non‑presentation of Barangay Captain Dacasin and absence of a ballistic report on the seven spent shells.
- Alleged alterations/misstatements by the Court of Appeals in restating trial court facts (addition/omission of certain words and disagreement as to location of recovered spent shells).
- Claim that the proper crime should be attempted homicide, not attempted murder, because treachery was not established.
Trial Court Disposition (RTC, Branch 41, Dagupan City; Decision dated 29 June 1999)
- Finding: Accused Rodolfo C. Velasco found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to the third paragraph of Articles 6 and 51 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Sentence: Indeterminate penalty — minimum Four (4) years of prision correccional (minimum) to maximum Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor (maximum).
- Civil liabilities: Ordered to indemnify the complaining witness the amount of P2,696.00 as actual damages.
- Trial court’s reasons:
- Credited identification testimonies of Frederick Maramba and Armando Maramba pointing to petitioner as the assailant.
- Rejected alibi defense: it was not impossible for petitioner to be at crime scene because the place where he allegedly alighted from the car was about ten minutes away; defense could not prevail over positive identifications.
Court of Appeals Disposition (CA decision dated 30 July 2004; CA‑G.R. CR No. 23366)
- Ruling: Appeal dismissed for lack of merit; RTC decision dated 29 June 1999 affirmed in all respects.
- Decretal text quoted in record: "WHEREFORE, for lack of merit,