Velasco vs. People

Treachery may be appreciated to qualify a crime as attempted murder even if the victim saw the assailant alight from a vehicle moments before the shooting, provided the attack was sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim with no opportunity to defend himself.

On April 19, 1998, Frederick Maramba was washing his jeep in front of his house in Dagupan City when a man alighted from a tricycle and fired at him multiple times with a .45 caliber pistol, hitting him in the left upper arm. The assailant chased the victim while continuing to fire before fleeing on the same tricycle.

• The Shooting Incident: At 7:30 AM on April 19, 1998, private complainant Frederick Maramba was washing his jeep when petitioner Rodolfo Velasco alighted from a tricycle and fired at him from about four meters. The first shot missed; the second hit Maramba's left upper arm, causing him to stumble. Maramba stood and ran, chased by Velasco for 25 to 30 meters as Velasco continued firing.
• The Arrest: Barangay Captain Dacasin reported the incident to the police, describing the suspect as wearing a "chaleco." Police officers pursued and intercepted Velasco on a tricycle heading to Calasiao. A .45 caliber pistol, three magazines, and fourteen live ammunitions were confiscated from Velasco. Seven spent shells were recovered at the crime scene. Maramba identified Velasco at the City Jail as the shooter.
• Prosecution Eyewitness: Armando Maramba, the tricycle driver and uncle of the victim, testified that he picked up Velasco, who was wearing a chaleco. Velasco ordered him to stop near the victim, alighted, fired several shots, then boarded the tricycle and ordered Armando to drive to Calasiao.
• Defense of Alibi: Velasco denied shooting Maramba and claimed he was in Lingayen the night before. He stated he left Lingayen in a car, alighted at Banaoang diversion road, and took a tricycle to Bayambang. He claimed police intercepted his tricycle, confiscated his licensed .45 caliber pistol, and framed him. He averred he did not know the victim and had no motive to kill him.

• Identity of the Assailant: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish his identity as the assailant, noting that the Barangay Captain who reported the suspect wore a chaleco was not presented, and the presented police officers were not eyewitnesses.
• Suppression of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the non-presentation of the Barangay Captain and the failure to submit a ballistic report on the seven empty shells constituted suppression of vital evidence.
• Alibi and Frame-up: Petitioner invoked denial and alibi, claiming he was framed up and that it was physically impossible for him, a trained navy man, to fire seven shots at close range and fail to fatally hit the victim.
• Lack of Motive: Petitioner argued that the victim was a total stranger, and the lack of motive strengthened his defense of alibi.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Petitioner asserted that Armando Maramba's testimony was biased and incredible due to his familial relationship with the victim.
• Misappreciation of Facts: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals misstated the trial court's findings by adding words like "suddenly" and altering the location where the spent shells were recovered.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Petitioner claimed that if any crime was committed, it was only attempted homicide, not attempted murder, because there was no treachery; the victim observed him for ten seconds before he drew his weapon.

• Question of Fact: Respondent countered that the petition raises a question of fact regarding witness credibility, which is not reviewable under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
• Merits of the Conviction: Respondent argued that even if decided on the merits, the petition fails due to the positive identification of the petitioner by the victim and an eyewitness.

• Review of Facts: Whether the factual findings of the Court of Appeals may be reviewed based on alleged discrepancies with the trial court's findings.
• Positive Identification vs. Alibi: Whether the defenses of denial and alibi prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• Suppression of Evidence: Whether the failure to present the Barangay Captain and a ballistic report constitutes suppression of evidence.
• Motive: Whether the lack of motive precludes conviction despite positive identification.
• Credibility of Related Witness: Whether the relationship of a prosecution witness to the victim impairs the credibility of his testimony.
• Treachery: Whether treachery is present to qualify the crime as attempted murder despite the victim seeing the assailant approach.

• Review of Facts: The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect and conclusive effect. Minor discrepancies in the appellate court's restatement of facts—such as the addition of the word "suddenly" or the location of recovered spent shells—are inconsequential and do not alter the established fact of positive identification.
• Positive Identification vs. Alibi: Positive identification by credible witnesses prevails over denial and alibi. Alibi crumbles in the face of positive declarations, especially where, as here, it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, which was only a ten-minute ride from where he claimed to have alighted.
• Suppression of Evidence: The non-presentation of the Barangay Captain did not constitute suppression of evidence because he was not an eyewitness; he merely relayed information. Furthermore, a ballistic report is not a prerequisite for conviction and is dispensable when there is positive eyewitness identification.
• Motive: Motive is not an element of a crime and need not be proved when the identity of the culprit is positively established. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction.
• Credibility of Related Witness: Relationship to the victim does not impair the credibility of a witness; rather, it may strengthen it, as it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit, absent any showing of improper motive.
• Treachery: Treachery was correctly appreciated. The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without provocation. Even if the victim saw the petitioner alight, the suddenness of the shooting left the victim with no opportunity to defend himself, as the victim was not forewarned by any outward sign that an attack was forthcoming until the first shot was fired.

• Alibi — For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be proven that the accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. The excuse must be airtight, admitting of no exception. Applied: Petitioner's alibi failed because the crime scene was only a ten-minute ride from where he claimed to have alighted, negating physical impossibility.
• Treachery (Alevosia) — The elements of treachery are: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed. The essence is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation. Applied: Treachery was appreciated because the victim, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon without warning, leaving him no option but to run.
• Motive — Motive is a state of mind and is not an element of a crime; thus, it does not have to be proved. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction. Motive assumes significance only when the identity of the perpetrator is in doubt. Applied: Because petitioner was positively identified, the lack of a known motive was inconsequential.
• Credibility of Related Witnesses — The blood relationship of a witness to the victim does not render the testimony unworthy of belief. Relationship can strengthen credibility, as it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit, absent evidence of improper motive. Applied: The testimony of the victim's uncle was given full credit because no improper motive was shown.

• "The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim."
• "Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense. But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission..."
• "Motive is a state of (one’s) mind which others cannot discern. It is not an element of the crime, and as such does not have to be proved. In fact, lack of motive for committing a crime does not preclude conviction."

• People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554 — Followed. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous or present good moral character and exemplary conduct as a military man; a bungled killing is not excused by the assailant's professional training.
• People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90 — Followed. Defined the requirement of physical impossibility for the defense of alibi to prosper.
• People v. Escote, Jr., 448 Phil. 749 — Followed. Enumerated the essential elements of treachery.
• People v. Lopez, 371 Phil. 852 — Followed. Defined the essence of treachery as a swift and unexpected attack.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Murder. Applied as the base crime for the attempted felony.
• Article 6, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Defines an attempted felony as one where the accused commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. Applied to classify the crime as attempted murder.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for an attempted felony, which is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony. Applied to determine the indeterminate penalty of 4 years of prision correccional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, limiting review to questions of law. Applied to emphasize that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are generally not reviewable.

Artemio V. Panganiban (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.