People vs. Lastimosa

A photocopy, as a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as an original document under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

Ybo Lastimosa was charged with Murder for the fatal shooting of Ildefonso Vega, Jr. on November 17, 2012, in Talisay City, Cebu. The prosecution's evidence, primarily from two eyewitnesses, established that Lastimosa shot the victim three times while the latter was on his motorcycle outside a cockpit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Lastimosa of Homicide, finding treachery and evident premeditation not proven. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to Murder, appreciating treachery. Lastimosa appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the admissibility of the death certificate photocopy, and the finding of treachery.

• Nature of the Case: Ybo Lastimosa was charged with Murder for the death of Ildefonso Vega, Jr.
• The Shooting: On November 17, 2012, eyewitnesses Elmer Cañeda and Vicente Cortes saw Lastimosa shoot the victim three times while the victim was standing on his motorcycle outside a cockpit in Cansojong, Talisay City. The victim sustained gunshot wounds to the head and neck.
• Evidence of Death: The victim's wife, Dureza Vega, testified that she found her husband dead at the hospital. A photocopy of the death certificate was presented, stating the cause of death as gunshot wounds.
• Defense's Version: Lastimosa interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was at his residence in Cebu City at the time of the incident.
• RTC Findings: The RTC convicted Lastimosa of Homicide, crediting the eyewitnesses but finding treachery and evident premeditation not proven. It relied on the photocopy of the death certificate without expressly discussing its admissibility.
• CA Findings: The CA convicted Lastimosa of Murder, finding treachery present. It upheld the admissibility and probative value of the death certificate photocopy.

• Corpus Delicti Not Proven: Petitioner argued that the corpus delicti was not established because the original death certificate was not presented, and the photocopy was inadmissible and lacked probative value. The autopsy report and medico-legal officer were not presented.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies lacked essential details, were overly simplistic, and were unreliable due to their delayed surfacing. He also highlighted the absence of proof of motive.
• Absence of Treachery: Petitioner argued that even if the attack was sudden, the prosecution failed to prove he consciously and deliberately adopted the means of attack. The shooting occurred in a public place in broad daylight, indicating risk to the assailant and that the victim was not rendered totally defenseless.

• Guilt Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Respondent countered that all elements of Murder were established through the credible testimony of eyewitnesses and the victim's wife. The death certificate, even as a photocopy, corroborated the fact of death.
• Corpus Delicti Established: Respondent argued that the corpus delicti was proven by the testimonies, and the presentation of an autopsy report or medico-legal officer is not an essential element of the crime.
• Witnesses are Credible: Respondent maintained that the eyewitnesses' positive identification of the accused prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi. Their conduct did not discredit them, and no ill motive was shown.
• Treachery Attended the Killing: Respondent argued that the sudden and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim, who was on his motorcycle and unable to defend himself, constituted treachery.

• Admissibility of Photocopy: Whether the photocopy of the death certificate is admissible in evidence.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder: Whether the prosecution proved all elements of Murder, including the qualifying circumstance of treachery, beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses are credible and sufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Admissibility of Photocopy: The photocopy is admissible. Under Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate. A photocopy qualifies as a duplicate. No genuine question on authenticity or injustice was raised here. The rule applies retroactively as it is procedural.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder: The conviction for Murder is affirmed. The fact of death and the accused's identity as the perpetrator were proven by the credible testimony of eyewitnesses and the victim's wife, corroborated by the death certificate. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present: the attack was sudden, leaving the victim on his motorcycle with no opportunity to defend himself, and the accused deliberately aimed at vital body parts.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The eyewitnesses' testimonies are credible. Their positive identification of the accused prevails over the weak defenses of denial and alibi. The trial court's assessment of their credibility is entitled to great respect.

• Original Document Rule (Best Evidence Rule) — Modern Application: Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, the rule was retitled and modified. A "duplicate" (e.g., a photocopy) is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate. This abandons the prior dichotomy between electronic and paper-based documents established in MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation.
• Treachery (Alevosia): The sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim who is in no position to defend himself, where the offender consciously adopts means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to himself, constitutes treachery. The location of wounds in vital areas can indicate a deliberate mode of attack.
• Retroactivity of Procedural Laws: Procedural laws, such as rules of evidence, are generally applied retroactively to pending cases because no vested right attaches to a particular remedy, provided no substantive right is impaired or injustice caused.

• "With the advent of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, in conjunction with the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the duplicate of any original, whether an electronic data message, electronic document, or paper-based document, is admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) under the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original."
• "A photocopy, which is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original through action of light on an electrically charged surface, clearly falls under the definition of a duplicate."
• "The location of the wounds in Ildefonso's body, the head and the neck, as well as the fact that Lastimosa shot Ildefonso thrice, shows that Lastimosa deliberately and consciously adopted means to ensure the commission of the offense."

• People v. Solar, 858 Phil. 884 (2019) — Cited for the rule that an Information must state the ultimate facts relative to a qualifying circumstance like treachery. The Court applied its guideline that failure to question a defective Information via a motion to quash or bill of particulars constitutes a waiver.
• MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Ssangyong Corporation, 562 Phil. 390 (2007) — Distinguished and its dichotomy between electronic and paper-based documents abandoned. The Court held that under the new rules, the admissibility of duplicates applies to all documents.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied for the standard amounts of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages in cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

• Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4, 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides the Original Document Rule, defining an original and a duplicate, and stating the exceptions under which a duplicate is admissible.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines Murder and prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when attended by qualifying circumstances like treachery.
• Republic Act No. 9346, Section 3 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and provides that persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole.

• Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Ponente)
• Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
• Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
• Justice Ricardo R. Rosario
• Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh