People vs. Corpuz

A murder conviction stands where the victim’s wife and son positively identify the accused as the gunman and treachery is shown by the accused’s shooting the victim twice while the victim was pinned down by another, depriving him of any chance to defend himself or retaliate.

Elinjer Daguio Corpuz is the nephew of the victim Jerry Corpuz; appellant’s brother Porfirio Corpuz, Jr. is also Jerry’s nephew. The charge was murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which penalizes killing attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery with reclusion perpetua to death.

On September 2, 2011, at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Jerry Corpuz left their house in Barangay Padapada, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, and rode his motorcycle to buy feeds. Just after a few meters, Porfirio Corpuz, Jr. flagged him down. When Jerry stopped, Porfirio confronted him about a dog. Jerry’s wife Ofelia Domingo Corpuz saw the altercation and got worried; together with their son Jerick, she walked toward the direction where Jerry and Porfirio were arguing and pushing each other. Ofelia saw Jerry falling to the ground and Porfirio immediately going on top of him. While the two were fighting, Porfirio’s brother, appellant Elinjer Daguio Corpuz, appeared with a gun in hand, walked up to Jerry, and shot him twice. Ofelia shouted for help and begged Porfirio to help bring Jerry to the hospital, but Jerry died even before they got there. Appellant, still holding his gun, walked away into the fields.

Jerick testified that after his mother called him, he ran toward the place and, about fifteen meters away, heard two gunshots. When he reached the place, he saw appellant Elinjer Corpuz, Porfirio Corpuz, Jr., and his father already dead; his father was lying on the ground face down and bloodied. Appellant was going away and holding a gun about ten meters from his father, while Porfirio was just standing in the premises. Jerick attempted to chase them but failed; appellant headed toward the fields.

Appellant denied the charge. He averred that on September 2, 2011, about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was cooking dinner inside his house in Pada-Pada, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. He later stepped out to gather malunggay leaves for the dish he was cooking and saw his brother Porfirio holding a “pamalo and pamingwit ng palaka.” On his way back to the house, he saw Jerry’s motorcycle parked by the roadside. When Jerry saw him, Jerry blocked his path and angrily asked him, “Hoy! Papanam?” He replied, “Ni apay? Annia ti problema, uncle?” Jerry uttered, “Maysa kamet a gago.” Then Jerry suddenly drew out his .38 caliber gun. Appellant was shocked and tried to grab the gun from Jerry. He was able to get hold of the gun, but Jerry pulled his shirt and whipped him with it; as a result, appellant accidentally pulled the trigger and fired the gun. Jerry persisted in taking back the gun until they both slid and fell. While Jerry was down on his knees, appellant noticed he was reaching for a knife from his back. He tried once again to wrestle the gun away from Jerry, and another shot was fired, hitting Jerry in the chest. He was shocked when he saw Jerry falling to the ground; soon after, he heard people rushing toward them, got scared, and ran.

The RTC found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ofelia and Jerick spontaneous, categorical, and straightforward; it gave full credence to them. It found that they clearly narrated the details of the fatal shooting and positively identified appellant as the perpetrator. It also found that appellant’s brother had already pinned the victim to the ground when appellant walked in and shot the hapless victim.

• Inconsistencies and Improbabilities: Appellant faulted the RTC for finding him guilty of murder despite alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Accident: Appellant maintained that the shooting was an accident.
• Lack of Treachery: Appellant argued that there was no evidence showing that treachery attended the killing.

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Respondent countered that the RTC correctly relied on the direct and straightforward account of the eyewitnesses Ofelia and Jerick regarding the slaying and the presence of treachery.
• Deference to RTC Findings: Respondent invoked the rule that the RTC’s factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.

• Conviction for Murder: Whether the CA erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for murder.
• Treachery: Whether treachery attended the killing of Jerry Corpuz.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation attended the killing.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the monetary awards were proper.

• Conviction for Murder: No. The CA did not err in affirming the conviction; the prosecution established appellant’s identity as the gunman and the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery attended the killing because appellant shot the victim twice while the victim was pinned to the ground by another, depriving him of any chance to defend himself or retaliate.
• Evident Premeditation: No. Evident premeditation was not established; the killing was spontaneous and the prosecution did not show a prior plan or sufficient time for reflection.
• Penalty and Damages: Reclusion perpetua is proper absent any aggravating circumstance. The damages were modified to P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages, P75,000 exemplary damages, and P50,000 temperate damages, with 6% interest per annum from finality.

• Conviction for Murder: Article 248 of the RPC defines murder and requires: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance in Article 248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The SC focused on the second and third elements. Ofelia, the victim’s wife, testified that she saw appellant walk toward Jerry while Porfirio was on top of him and shoot Jerry twice. Jerick, the victim’s son, corroborated her: he heard two gunshots, saw his father bloodied on the ground, and saw appellant walking away holding a gun. The RTC found their testimonies spontaneous, categorical, and straightforward, and the SC held that their close relationship with the victim did not weaken their credibility; there was no showing of improper motive to falsely testify against appellant, who was the victim’s nephew. Appellant’s accident defense failed because the prosecution witnesses positively identified him as the person who walked toward the pinned victim and shot him twice without warning, which was not accidental.
• Treachery: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Here, Jerry was wrestling with his nephew Porfirio after a heated verbal altercation that became physical; they both fell and Porfirio pinned Jerry down. Appellant suddenly came carrying a gun and shot Jerry twice. The SC held that shooting the victim while he was pinned down by another effectively denied him the chance to defend himself or retaliate, and the two shots showed an intent to make sure he would be mortally injured or killed. Treachery therefore attended the killing.
• Evident Premeditation: Evident premeditation requires: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. To warrant a finding, it must appear that the decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt, and the prosecution must show how or when the plan to kill was hatched and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. Both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish evident premeditation, and the SC agreed. The killing was more spontaneous than planned: when appellant saw the victim pinned on the ground by Porfirio, he walked to them and shot Jerry twice; there was no showing that the killing was plotted or that there was enough time for appellant to reflect on the consequences before carrying it out.
• Penalty and Damages: Murder is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, with reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of any aggravating circumstance, both the RTC and the CA correctly meted reclusion perpetua. As for monetary awards, the SC sustained P75,000.00 civil indemnity; increased moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00; increased exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P75,000.00; and increased temperate damages from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. These amounts shall earn 6% interest per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.

• Murder — Murder requires: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any qualifying circumstance in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. The SC applied the rule and found the second and third elements present: appellant was positively identified as the gunman, and treachery attended the killing.
• Treachery — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The SC applied it where appellant shot the victim twice while the victim was pinned to the ground by appellant’s brother, denying the victim any chance to defend himself or retaliate.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. It must appear that the decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt, and the prosecution must show how or when the plan was hatched and how much time elapsed. The SC found it not established because the killing was spontaneous: appellant saw the victim pinned down and immediately shot him twice.
• Credibility of Related Witnesses — The close relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim does not weaken their credibility; it can make their testimony more credible because they would be interested in vindicating the crime and would not charge a fall guy other than the real culprit, absent improper motive. The SC applied this to Ofelia and Jerick, the victim’s wife and son, and noted no improper motive to falsely testify against appellant, who was the victim’s nephew.
• Accident as Defense — An accident defense fails where prosecution witnesses positively identify the accused as the person who deliberately walked toward the victim and shot him twice without warning while the victim was pinned down. The SC rejected appellant’s claim that the gun discharged accidentally during a struggle.
• Damages in Murder — In murder, the SC sustained civil indemnity and increased moral, exemplary, and temperate damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid. The SC applied People vs. Jugueta to set the amounts at P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages, P75,000 exemplary damages, and P50,000 temperate damages.

• “Murder requires the following elements: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.” — The SC enumerates the elements of murder.
• “There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.” — The SC defines treachery.
• “Appellant’s act of shooting the victim while the latter was pinned down by another effectively denied the victim the chance to defend himself or to retaliate against his perpetrators.” — The SC applies treachery to the facts.
• “Evident premeditation requires the following elements: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts.” — The SC lays down the requisites of evident premeditation.

• People vs. Gaborne, 791 Phil. 581, 592 (2016) — Cited for the elements of murder.
• People vs. Dela Cruz, 626 Phil. 631, 639 (2010) — Cited with Gaborne for the elements of murder.
• Cicera vs. People, 139 Phil. 25, 44 (2014) — Cited for the definition of treachery.
• People vs. Dagsa, G.R. No. 219889, January 29, 2018 — Cited for the rule that a candid and straightforward testimony leaves no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth.
• People vs. Dayaday, 803 Phil. 363, 371-372 (2017) — Cited for the rule that close relationship with the victim does not weaken credibility and can even strengthen it.
• People vs. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, January 22, 2018 — Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Davido, 434 Phil. 684, 690 (2002) — Cited for the rule that evident premeditation must appear as a result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 845 (2016) — Cited for the amounts of damages in murder.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes murder with reclusion perpetua to death when attended by qualifying circumstances including treachery. The SC applied it because the killing was qualified by treachery and no aggravating circumstance was present, making reclusion perpetua the proper penalty.