People vs. Lee

Evidence of the offended party's bad moral character is inadmissible in murder cases where the killing is attended by treachery and self-defense is not claimed, and an aggravating circumstance not alleged in the Information cannot be appreciated to increase the penalty.

On September 29, 1996, Joseph Marquez was shot and killed while watching television in the living room of his home in Caloocan City. His mother, Herminia Marquez, witnessed the shooting and identified their neighbor, Noel Lee, as the assailant. Lee had previously caught the victim attempting to steal his car stereo six days prior to the incident.

• The Incident: At 9:00 in the evening of September 29, 1996, Herminia Marquez and her son Joseph were watching television in their well-lit living room. Herminia saw a hand holding a gun at the open window and observed Noel Lee aiming at Joseph. Before she could warn her son, Lee fired, hitting Joseph twice in the head and firing three more shots before fleeing towards his house.
• Medical Findings: The victim sustained two fatal gunshot wounds to the head, causing intracranial hemorrhage. The medico-legal officer theorized the assailant was more than two feet away from the victim.
• Investigation and Prosecution: Herminia initially filed a complaint dismissed for insufficiency of evidence by the City Prosecutor. The Secretary of Justice reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of the Information. A warrant of arrest was issued, and Lee was subsequently arrested by NBI agents.
• Defense: Lee claimed alibi, testifying that he was drinking and singing with friends at his house during the shooting. He also presented evidence of the victim's bad character (drug addiction and thievery), suggesting others might have had a motive to kill him.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in relying on the biased, incredible, and inconsistent testimony of Herminia Marquez, specifically the discrepancy between her affidavit stating the gun came from a "hole in the window" ("butas ng bintana") and her testimony stating "open window" ("bukas na bintana").
• Identity of Assailant: Accused-appellant maintained that the trial court erred in identifying him as the assailant based solely on the mother's biased declaration without considering the victim's shady character, which suggested others might have had a motive to kill him.
• Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that the death penalty was erroneously imposed despite reasonable doubt.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The prosecution countered that Herminia's testimony was positive, clear, and straightforward, and that inconsistencies between affidavits and testimony are common and do not discredit the witness.
• Motive: The prosecution argued that it was the accused-appellant who had a strong motive to harm the victim, having caught him attempting to steal six days prior.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the inconsistency between the eyewitness's affidavit and testimony regarding the window destroys her credibility.
• Character Evidence: Whether evidence of the victim's bad moral character is admissible to prove the probability of the offense charged.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling can be appreciated to impose the death penalty despite not being alleged in the Information.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The inconsistency does not destroy credibility. Affidavits are generally inferior to open court declarations because they are taken ex parte and are often incomplete and inaccurate. The witness satisfactorily explained the discrepancy in open court, correcting her affidavit.
• Character Evidence: Evidence of the victim's bad moral character is inadmissible. Under Section 51(a)(3), Rule 130, character evidence of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged, commonly in self-defense or rape cases. In murder cases attended by treachery, proof of the victim's bad character is unnecessary and irrelevant, especially when self-defense is not claimed.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Dwelling cannot be appreciated. Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (retroactively applied as favorable to the accused), qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specified in the Information. Since dwelling was not alleged, it cannot increase the penalty. Evident premeditation was also not proven due to lack of direct evidence of planning.

• Character Evidence in Murder Cases — In homicide cases, the victim's character is admissible to prove aggression or the accused's state of mind (self-defense). However, in murder cases where treachery is present and self-defense is not claimed, proof of the victim's bad character is irrelevant and inadmissible.
• Allegations of Aggravating Circumstances — Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be expressly alleged in the Information; otherwise, they cannot be appreciated to increase the penalty, pursuant to Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Superiority of Court Testimony over Affidavits — Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court declarations because they are taken ex parte and are almost always incomplete and inaccurate.

• "While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation."
• "The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show 'that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.' This rule does not apply to cases of murder."

• People v. Soliman, 101 Phil. 767 (1957) — Followed. Held that proof of the victim's bad character is not necessary in murder cases where treachery or premeditation is present, as opposed to homicide cases where self-defense is claimed.

• Section 51, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs the admissibility of character evidence. Sub-paragraph (a)(3) allows proof of the offended party's good or bad moral character if it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Applied to rule that the victim's bad character was irrelevant in a treacherous murder without a claim of self-defense.
• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specified in the complaint or Information. Applied retroactively as favorable to the accused to preclude the consideration of dwelling, which was not alleged in the Information.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Requires the presence of an aggravating circumstance for the award of exemplary damages. Applied to delete the award of exemplary damages due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ.