People v Amaca 277 SCRA 215 Digest

People vs. Amaca

GR No. 110129 August 11, 1997
Ponente: Panganiban, J.:

Offer of compromise in Criminal Cases; Res Gestae

 Facts:

1.    Accused Amaca and another known as “Ogang” were charged for shooting Wilson Vergara. During the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Edgar Pialago, a resident physician on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital after the shooting. The doctor testified that he was able to attend to the victim who had undergone a surgical operation conducted by another doctor. At that time, the major organs of the victim were no longer functioning normally, while his pancreas was likewise injured due to the 2 gunshot wounds at his back. The victim was admitted at 10:45PM but expired the following evening at 10PM. According to Dr. Pialago, even with immediate medical attention, the victim could not survive the wounds he sustained.

2.     Another witness testified, PO Mangubat,  a police officer , who interviewed the victim (Wilson Vergara) right after the shooting. Mangubat  testified that he saw the victim already on board a Ford Fiera pick-up ready for transport to the hospital. He inquired from the victim about the incident, and the former answered he was shot by CVO Amaca and Ogang. Upon query why he was shot, the victim said he did not know the reason why he was shot. Upon being asked as to his condition, the victim said that he was about to die.  He was able to reduce into writing the declaration of the victim and made latter affixed his thumb mark with the use of his own blood in the presence of Wagner Cardenas, the brother of the City Mayor. 

3.       Segundina Vergara, mother of the victim, and her son-in-law Jose Lapera both desisted from further prosecution of the case. the former because of the "financial help" extended by the accused to her family, and the latter because Segundina had already "consented to the amicable settlement of the case." Despite this, the Department of Justice found the existence of a prima facie case based on the victim's ante mortem statement.

4.       The lower court convicted Amaca on the basis of the victim's ante mortem statement to Police Officer Mangubat positively identifying accused. The dying declaration was deemed sufficient to overcome the accused’s  defense of alibi. However, due to the voluntary desistance of the victim's mother from further prosecuting the case, the court a quo declined to make a finding on the civil liability of the appellant.

Issue:  1) Whether or not offer of compromise is admissible against the accused

YES. The "financial help" when viewed as an offer of compromise may be deemed as additional proof to demonstrate appellant's criminal liability. The victim's mother desisted from prosecuting the case in consideration of the "financial help" extended to her family by the accused-appellant. 

It is a well-settled rule that that the desistance of the victim's complaining mother does not bar the People from prosecuting the criminal action, but it does operate as a waiver of the right to pursue civil indemnity. Hence, in effectively waiving her right to institute an action to enforce the civil liability of accused-appellant, she also waived her right to be awarded any civil indemnity arising from the criminal prosecution. This waiver is bolstered by the fact that neither she nor any private prosecutor in her behalf appealed the trial court's refusal to include a finding of civil liability. But the heirs, if there are any may file an independent civil action to recover damages for the death of Wilson Vergara.

Issue (2): Whether or not  the dying declaration of victim should be admitted

YES.  The victim’s dying declaration is admissible.

A dying declaration is worthy of belief because it is highly unthinkable for one who is aware of his impending death to accuse, falsely or even carelessly, anyone of being responsible for his foreseeable demise. Indeed, "when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the

truth." This is the rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The elements of such exception are: (1) the deceased made the declaration conscious of his impending death; (2) the declarant would have been a competent witness had he survived; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (4) the declaration is offered in a criminal case where the declarant's death is the subject of inquiry; and (5) the declaration is complete in itself. All these concur in the present case.

Finally, Police Officer Mangubat is presumed under the law to have regularly performed his duty. There is nothing in the circumstances surrounding his investigation of the crime which shows any semblance of irregularity or bias, much less an attempt to frame Amaca. Even the accused testified that he had no previous misunderstanding with Police Officer Mangubat and knew no reason why the latter would falsely testify against him.

Declarant is a competent witness

The serious nature of the victim's injuries did not affect his credibility as a witness since said injuries, as previously mentioned, did not cause the immediate loss of his ability to perceive and to identify his shooter. 

Homicide only not murder

Appellant may be held liable only for homicide since treachery was not alleged in the Information, while evident premeditation and night time, although duly alleged, were not satisfactorily proven. The Information readily reveals that the killing was qualified only by evident premeditation. Treachery was not alleged in the information. It is  necessary to qualify the crime to murder. Treachery is an element of the crime. The Constitution requires that the accused must be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation against him."The failure to allege treachery in the Information is a major lapse of the prosecution.

Moreover, treachery and night time may not be considered even as generic aggravating circumstances, because there is nothing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to convincingly show that the accused-appellant consciously and purposely adopted (1) such means of attack to render the victim defenseless and (2) the darkness of night to facilitate the commission of the crime, to prevent its discovery or even evade capture.