People vs. Bendecio

A single act of firing a gun at an intended victim but hitting an unintended victim instead constitutes the complex crime of attempted murder with murder, where treachery qualifies both the attempted killing of the intended victim and the actual killing of the unintended victim under the doctrine of aberratio ictus.

Appellant Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan" was a mere acquaintance of complainant Gerry Marasigan, recognized as his mother's neighbor. They had no prior altercation. The charge arose from a single gunshot fired at Gerry outside his home in Alabang, Muntinlupa City on December 24, 2011, which missed Gerry but fatally wounded his seven-year-old daughter Jonabel and injured his sister Princess. The prosecution charged appellant with the complex crime of attempted murder with murder under Articles 4, 6, 48, and 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

On December 24, 2011, around midnight, Gerry Marasigan joined a drinking spree at a friend's home in Muntinlupa City. When his wife arrived to fetch him, they left together. On their way out, Gerry bumped into appellant Nestor Bendecio, whom he recognized as his mother's neighbor. Appellant asked "Anong problema?" and Gerry replied, "Kuya Nestor, asawa ko 'to, hindi mo na ba ako nakikilala?" Appellant retorted "Hindi, bastos ka eh." Gerry ignored the remark and continued walking home with his wife. They were not friends but mere acquaintances and had never had any prior altercation.

Upon reaching home, Gerry was closing the front door when he noticed appellant standing right outside the doorway, at arm's length. Suddenly, appellant drew a gun, aimed at Gerry, and fired. The bullet missed Gerry but struck his seven-year-old daughter Jonabel in the chest, then exited and hit his sister Princess in the leg. Gerry rushed Jonabel to the hospital, but she died the following day. Princess, who was inside the house with Jonabel when the shot was fired, testified that she saw appellant holding and firing the gun in Gerry's direction, illuminated by the light at the front door. Upon hearing the shot, she and Jonabel hid in the bathroom, where she realized they were both bleeding. Appellant fired only once.

Appellant testified that he was in Samat, Samar on the date of the incident. He acknowledged knowing Gerry only because his sister's boarding house was adjacent to Gerry's residence, and claimed no knowledge of any reason why Gerry would implicate him. The trial court credited the positive, straightforward testimonies of Gerry and Princess and rejected appellant's uncorroborated denial and alibi. The Court of Appeals affirmed those factual findings, noting that appellant offered no evidence beyond bare allegations to show that Gerry's intoxication impaired his identification or that Princess had any ulterior motive to falsely testify.

• Witness Credibility — Intoxication: Appellant argued that Gerry's testimony should not have been given weight because Gerry admitted joining a drinking session before the shooting, and his inebriation diminished his ability to clearly identify the armed man standing at his doorstep that night.
• Witness Credibility — Bias: Appellant asserted that Princess, being Gerry's sister, was a biased witness whose testimony was unworthy of belief.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant faulted the trial court and the Court of Appeals for convicting him based on the supposedly doubtful testimonies of Gerry and Princess.

• Credibility of Trial Court Findings: The OSG maintained that the trial court's conclusion on witness credibility deserved great respect, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment firsthand.
• Intoxication Does Not Impair Identification: The OSG argued that the defense lacked evidence to support the allegation that Gerry's level of intoxication impaired his capacity to identify his assailant, and that intoxication by itself does not necessarily prevent a witness from making positive identification.
• Relationship Is Immaterial: The OSG contended that Princess's blood relationship with Gerry was immaterial because her testimony was not inherently improbable and no improper motive to falsely incriminate appellant was shown.

• Complex Crime: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting appellant of the complex crime of attempted murder with murder.
• Witness Credibility: Whether the testimonies of Gerry and Princess were sufficiently credible to sustain the conviction despite alleged intoxication and bias.

• Complex Crime: No. The Court of Appeals did not err. Appellant's single act of firing a gun at Gerry constituted the complex crime of murder with attempted murder under Article 48 of the RPC, producing two grave felonies from one act.
• Witness Credibility: No. The trial court's credibility findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were sustained, appellant having offered no evidence that Gerry's intoxication impaired his identification or that Princess had any ulterior motive to testify falsely.

• Complex Crime: Appellant fired a single shot at Gerry with intent to kill, as evidenced by his use of a deadly weapon. Because the shot missed Gerry for reasons other than his own spontaneous desistance, appellant was liable for attempted murder as to Gerry. Treachery qualified the attempt: appellant's sudden, unexpected attack on an unarmed victim who was in no position to defend himself satisfied both elements of treachery under Article 248 of the RPC. The bullet that missed Gerry struck and killed seven-year-old Jonabel and wounded Princess. This was a clear case of aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow under Article 4 of the RPC, which imposes criminal liability for all the natural and direct consequences of a felonious act even if the wrongful result differs from what the offender intended. Jonabel's death was the natural and direct consequence of appellant's felonious assault against Gerry. Treachery also qualified Jonabel's killing: pursuant to People vs. Flora, even though Jonabel was not the intended victim, the sudden firing rendered her helpless to defend herself, and treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus. Because a single act produced two grave felonies — attempted murder as to Gerry and murder as to Jonabel — Article 48 of the RPC applied, requiring imposition of the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period. The most serious crime being murder, and the penalty for murder being reclusion perpetua to death under Article 248, the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua, the death penalty being prohibited by RA 9346. Pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02, the qualification "without eligibility for parole" was appended because the circumstances warranted the death penalty had it not been for RA 9346.

• Witness Credibility: When credibility of witnesses is put in issue, the Court generally does not disturb the trial court's factual findings, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, since the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment. Appellant offered no evidence, other than bare allegations, to show that Gerry's intoxication impaired his ability to identify appellant or that Princess had any ulterior motive to testify falsely. Against the positive and credible testimonies of Gerry and Princess, appellant's denial and alibi — inherently weak defenses — could not prevail. A categorical testimony with a ring of truth prevails over a mere denial.

• Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow) — Under Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The offender is liable for all the natural and direct consequences of the felonious act. In this case, although appellant intended to shoot Gerry, the bullet instead killed Jonabel; her death was the natural and direct consequence of appellant's felonious assault, and he was held liable for her murder.

• Complex Crime under Article 48, RPC — A complex crime arises when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period. Here, appellant's single act of firing a gun produced attempted murder (as to Gerry) and murder (as to Jonabel), constituting a complex crime. The penalty for murder — the most serious offense — was imposed in its maximum period, resulting in reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• Treachery in Aberratio Ictus — Treachery may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance even when the victim killed or injured was not the intended target, provided the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack rendered the actual victim helpless to defend themselves. This follows from People vs. Flora, where the accused fired at his target but hit two other persons; treachery was appreciated because the sudden firing rendered the actual victims defenseless.

• Credibility of Trial Court Findings — Factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally accorded great respect and not disturbed on appeal, the trial court being in the best position to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying.

• Denial and Alibi as Weak Defenses — Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over positive and credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses. A categorical testimony with a ring of truth generally prevails over a mere denial.

• "Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for holding appellant liable for Jonabel's murder despite her not being the intended victim.

• "Just because Jonabel was not the intended victim does not make appellant's sudden attack any less treacherous." — This sentence captures the Court's extension of treachery to aberratio ictus situations, relying on People vs. Flora.

• "Here, appellant's single act of firing his gun constituted the crime of attempted murder, with respect to Gerry, and the crime of murder, as regards Jonabel." — This statement defines the application of Article 48 complex crime doctrine to the facts, establishing the legal basis for the single-penalty imposition.

• "As between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a mere denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail." — This formulation of the standard for weighing denial against positive identification is frequently cited in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• People vs. Flora, 389 Phil. 601 (2000) — Controlling precedent for appreciating treachery in aberratio ictus. The accused fired at his target but hit two other persons; the Court appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance because the sudden firing rendered the actual victims helpless. Applied directly to hold that treachery qualified Jonabel's killing despite her not being the intended victim.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed for the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages in murder and attempted murder cases, including the rule that damages must be awarded for each component of a complex crime.
• People vs. Amora, 748 Phil. 608 (2014) — Followed for the proposition that treachery does not require a rear attack; even a frontal attack can be treacherous when unexpected and directed at an unarmed victim unable to repel it.
• Palaganas vs. People, 533 Phil. 169 (2006) — Followed for the elements of attempted murder: intent to kill manifested by use of a deadly weapon, and non-fatal wounds sustained by the victim.
• People vs. Adriano, 164 Phil. 144 (2015) — Cited for the elements of murder under Article 248 of the RPC.

• Article 4, Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Applied to hold appellant liable for Jonabel's death as the natural and direct consequence of his felonious assault against Gerry.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code — Defines attempted felonies: there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Applied to classify the shooting of Gerry as attempted murder.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Governs complex crimes: when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period. Applied to impose the penalty for murder in its maximum period.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder, including killing committed with treachery. Applied to qualify both the attempted killing of Gerry and the actual killing of Jonabel as murder.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied to reduce the imposable penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, with the qualification "without eligibility for parole."
• A.M. No. 15-08-02 — Provides guidelines on the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole." Applied to append that qualification because circumstances warranted the death penalty had it not been prohibited by RA 9346.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, J. Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ. concurred.