At about 6:00 in the afternoon on August 8, 1997, the late Vicente Delector was conversing with his brother, Antolin, near his residence when accused, his brother Armando, shot him twice using a revolver. The victim was rushed to the hospital but succumbed the following day due to injuries sustained from his gunshot wounds.
Vicente’s son, Arnel, identified his uncle, the accused, as his father’s assailant. He attested that the accused had fired his gun at his father from their mother’s house.
The defense asserted that the shooting of Vicente had been an accident and claimed such accident as an exempting circumstance in his case for murder.
The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court and opined that accident as an exempting circumstance is highly improbable as the weapon used, a revolver, is not one that is prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism.
Issues:
- Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses;
- Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals but found the accused guilty of homicide, not murder.
Accordingly, the identification of the assailant was a direct evidence of the commission of the crime. It was also fully corroborated by the recollection of a disinterested witness – the attending physician of the victim who witnessed the latter declaring to the police investigator interviewing him that it was the accused who shot him.
According to Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, any person may be exempted from criminal liability who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. In this case, accident could not be appreciated as an exempting circumstance simply because accused did not establish that he had acted with due care, and without fault of intention of causing injuries to the victim.
Because the revolver was fired twice and considering the mechanism of such weapon which would not fire unless considerable pressure was applied on its trigger, the accident was deemed to be eliminated.
Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses and their account of the events are best resolved to the trial court whose calibration of testimonies, and assessment of and conclusion about their testimonies are generally given conclusive effect.
Homicide, not murder, was found by the Court in application of Sec. 9, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that for the cause of accusation, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statue defining the offense, but in such form as it is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.
The nature and character of the crime charged are determined not by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the facts alleged in the indictment, that is, the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information, and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint not the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law.
The accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.
