G.R. No.

139070      May 29, 2002 but could not move as accused-appellant fired a second shot at Joseph and three (3)
shots more— two hit the sofa and one hit the cement floor. When no more shots were
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, fired, Herminia ran to the window and saw accused-appellant, in a blue sando, flee
vs. towards the direction of his house. Herminia turned to her son, dragged his body to
NOEL LEE, accused-appellant. the door and shouted for help. With the aid of her neighbor and kumpare, Herminia
brought Joseph to the MCU Hospital where he later died.1âwphi1.nêt
PUNO, J.:
Police investigators arrived at the hospital and inquired about the shooting incident.
Herminia told them that her son was shot by Noel Lee. From the hospital, Herminia
On automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, went to the St. Martin Funeral Homes where Joseph’s body was brought. Thereafter,
Branch 127 in Criminal Case No. C-54012 (98), which sentenced accused-appellant she proceeded to the Caloocan City Police Headquarters where she gave her sworn
Noel Lee to death for the murder of Joseph Marquez. statement about the shooting.2

On May 27, 1998, an Information was filed against accused-appellant charging him Upon request of the Caloocan City police, a post-mortem examination was made on
with the crime of murder committed as follows: Joseph’s body. Dr. Rosaline O. Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory Service made the following findings:
"That on or about the 29th day of September 1996, in Kalookan
City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable "FINDINGS:
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack and shoot one JOSEPH MARQUEZ y Fairly developed, fairly nourished male cadaver in rigor mortis with
LAGANDI, with the use of a handgun, thereby inflicting upon the postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body.
latter serious physical injuries, which ultimately caused the victim’s Conjunctiva are pale, Lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. A needle
death. puncture mark was noted at the dorsum of the right hand.

CONTRARY TO LAW."1 HEAD:

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the prosecution (1) Gunshot wound, frontal region, measuring 0.5 x 0.5
presented the following witnesses: (a) Herminia Marquez, the mother of the victim; (b) cm, just right of the anterior midline, 161 cm from heel,
Dr. Darwin Corpuz, a resident doctor at the Manila Caloocan University (MCU) with an upbraded collar, measuring 0.2 cm superiorly and
Hospital; (c) PO2 Rodelio Ortiz, a police officer who examined the crime scene; and laterally, 0.1 cm medially and inferiorly directed
(d) Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police posteriorwards, downwards and to the left fracturing the
(PNP) Crime Laboratory. frontal bone, lacerating the brain. A deformed slug was
recovered embedded at the left cerebral hemisphere of
the brain.
The prosecution established the following facts: At 9:00 in the evening of September
29, 1996, Herminia Marquez, 46 years of age and her son, Joseph, 26 years of age,
were in the living room of their house located at No. 173 General Evangelista St., (2) Gunshot wound, occipital region, measuring 0.5 x 0.5
Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The living room was brightly lit by a circular fluorescent cm, 2 cm left of the posterior midline, 162 cm from heel,
lamp in the ceiling. Outside their house was an alley leading to General Evangelista with a uniform 0.2 cm upbraded collar, directed slightly
Street. The alley was bright and bustling with people and activity. There were women anteriorwards, downwards and lateralwards, fracturing the
sewing garments on one side and on the other was a store catering to customers. In occipital bone and lacerating the brain. A deformed slug
their living room, mother and son were watching a basketball game on television. was recovered at the left auricular region.
Herminia was seated on an armchair and the television set was to her left. Across
her, Joseph sat on a sofa against the wall and window of their house and the (3) Contusion, right eyebrow, measuring 3 x 2 cm, 3 cm
television was to his right. Herminia looked away from the game and casually glanced from the anterior midline.
at her son. To her complete surprise, she saw a hand holding a gun coming out of the
open window behind Joseph. She looked up and saw accused-appellant Noel Lee There are subdural and subarachnoidal hemorrhages.
peering through the window and holding the gun aimed at Joseph. Before she could
warn him, Joseph turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, appellant
fired his gun hitting Joseph’s head. Joseph slumped on the sofa. Herminia stood up
 Stomach is ¼ full of partially digested food particles and Joseph might not just steal but kill her and everyone in their household because of his
positive for alcoholic odor. drug habit.11

CONCLUSION: The accused-appellant likewise explained the two criminal cases filed against him in
1984 and 1989. The information for attempted murder was dismissed as a result of
Cause of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of gunshot the victim’s desistance while in the frustrated homicide case, the real assailant
wounds. Head."3 appeared and admitted his crime.12

At the time of his death, Joseph was employed as driver by the Santos Enterprises In a decision dated June 22, 1999, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty and
Freight Services earning P250.00 a day.4 He left behind two children by his live-in sentenced him to the penalty of death. The court also ordered appellant to pay the
partner who are now under his mother’s care and support. Herminia spent heirs of the victim civil indemnity of P50,000.00, actual damages of P90,000.00, moral
approximately P90,000.00 for the funeral and burial expenses of her deceased son. damages of P60,000.00 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and the costs of the
The expenses were supported by receipts5 and admitted by the defense.6 suit. Thus:

Herminia filed a complaint for murder against accused-appellant. The complaint, "WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered and the
docketed as I.S. No. 96-3246, was however dismissed for insufficiency of evidence in prosecution having established beyond an iota of doubt the guilt of
a Resolution dated December 4, 1996 by Prosecutor Dionisio C. Sison with the accused NOEL LEE of the crime of Murder as defined and
approval of Caloocan City Prosecutor Rosauro J. Silverio. 7 Herminia appealed the penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as
order of dismissal to the Secretary of Justice. In a letter dated March 16, 1998, amended by R.A. 7659, this court, in view of the presence of the
Secretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III reversed and set aside the appealed Resolution generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling and without any
and ordered the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City to file an information for murder mitigating circumstance to offset it, hereby sentences the said
against the accused-appellant.8 Accordingly, the Information was filed and a warrant accused to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the
of arrest issued against accused-appellant on June 8, 1998. On October 16, 1998, legal heirs of the deceased civil indemnity of P50,000.00; to pay the
appellant was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). private complainant actual damages of P90,000.00 plus moral and
exemplary damages of P60,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively;
and to pay the costs.
Appellant is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal cases
pending against him in Caloocan City. He was charged with frustrated homicide in
1984 and attempted murder in 1989.9 Consistent with the provisions of Section 10, Rule 122 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, let the entire records
hereof including the complete transcripts of stenographic notes be
For his defense, accused-appellant presented two witnesses: (a) Orlando Bermudez, forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and
a neighbor; and (b) himself. He denies the killing of Joseph Marquez. He claims that judgment, within the reglementary period set forth in said section.
from 8:00 to 10:00 in the evening of September 29, 1996, he was in his house located
at 317 M. de Castro St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. He was having some drinks
with his neighbor, Orlando Bermudez, and his driver, Nelson Columba. They were SO ORDERED.13
enjoying themselves, drinking and singing with the videoke. Also in the house were
his wife, children and household help. At 10:00 P.M., Orlando and Nelson went home Hence, this appeal. Before us, accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
and accused-appellant went to sleep. He woke up at 5:30 in the morning of the
following day and learned that Joseph Marquez, a neighbor, was shot to death. To I
appellant’s surprise, he was tagged as Joseph’s killer.10
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING HEAVILY
Accused-appellant had known the victim since childhood and their houses are only ON THE SELF-SERVING AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY
two blocks apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and OF THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM, HERMINIA MARQUEZ,
drug addict. Six days before his death, on September 23, 1996, accused-appellant WHOSE NARRATION OF THE CHAIN OF OCCURRENCE THAT
caught Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph scampered away. LED TO THE DEATH OF JOSEPH MARQUEZ WAS BEYOND
As proof of the victim’s bad reputation, appellant presented a letter handwritten by his BELIEF.
mother, Herminia, addressed to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and sent
through PO3 Willy Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, Herminia was
surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was hooked on II
shabu, a prohibited drug, and was a thief. Herminia was scared that eventually
 THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN HASTILY TAGGING Q:       What were you and your son, Joseph, doing then?
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, NOEL LEE, AS THE ASSAILANT
BASED MERELY ON THE BIASED DECLARATION OF THE A:       Watching TV.
MOTHER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SHADY CHARACTER
OF THE VICTIM AGAINST WHOM OTHERS MIGHT HAVE AN
AXE TO GRIND. Q:       Will you please tell us your position, I am referring to you
and your son in relation to the television set where you are
watching the show.
III
A:       We were facing each other while watching television which is
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS DECISION OF on the left side.
FINDING GUILT ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WITHOUT
EVEN RAISING A FINGER IN SATISFYING ITSELF THAT THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OBTAINING IN 1996 ARE STILL Q:       Will you please tell us where exactly was your son, Joseph,
PREVAILING IN 1999 WHEN THE CASE WAS TRIED ON THE seated while watching television?
MERITS SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE
ASSAILANT BEYOND DOUBT. A:       At the end most of the sofa.

IV Q:       The sofa you are referring to is the one near the window.

THE COURT A QUO GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN TREATING WITH A:       Yes, sir. Dikit lang po.
LENIENCY HERMINIA MARQUEZ’S VACILLATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE "BUTAS NG BINTANA" AS CONTAINED IN Q:       Will you give us an idea or describe to us that window which
HER SWORN STATEMENT AND THE "BUKAS NA BINTANA" AS you mentioned awhile ago?
PER HER REPAIRED TESTIMONY—A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL
ANOMALY THAT ASSAULTED THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT. A:       Transparent glass.

V Q:       How high is it from the ground?

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE COURT: Which one?
EXTREME PENALTY OF DEATH UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE OBVIOUS REASONABLE DOUBT."14 ATTY. OPENA: The window glass?

The assigned errors principally involve the issue of the credibility of Herminia WITNESS: About three feet from the ground.
Marquez, the lone prosecution eyewitness. Accused-appellant claims that the trial
court should not have accepted Herminia’s testimony because it is biased, incredible
ATTY. OPENA TO WITNESS:
and inconsistent.

Q:       You said three feet. What do you mean by that? Is that
Herminia’s testimony on direct examination is as follows:
window elevated from the ground?

"x      x      x
A:       The same height as this court window which is about three
feet from the ground, and from one another about four by four
ATTY. OPENA: Now who was your companion, if any, at that time? window [sic], three feet by the ground.

WITNESS: Me and my son, Joseph Marquez, and the wife upstairs Q:       Now, you demonstrated by showing a portion, you mean to
putting the baby to sleep. tell us that window was mounted on a concrete or hollow block?
A:       Hollow block, po. Q:       What did you do with what you saw?

Q:       How high is that hollow block that you were referring to? A:       Nakita ko pong gumanoon siya, sumilip na ganoon, sabay
putok ng baril. Tumingin po siya sa may bintana, ganoon po, sabay
COURT: She said three feet. putok ng baril.

ATTY. OPENA TO WITNESS: COURT: You said he turned the head. Who turned the head? Sino
ang gumanyan sa sinabi mo?
Q:       Which is higher, that sofa which is posted near the window
or the hollow block? A:       (Witness demonstrating that the victim peeped through the
window).
A:       Hollow block.
Q:       And then?
Q:       By how many inches or feet?
A:       At the same time the firing of the gun [sic] and I saw my son
slumped.
A:       About half a foot.
ATTY. OPENA TO THE WITNESS:
Q:       You said the sofa was long. Will you please tell us in what
portion of your sofa your son Joseph was seated?
Q:       And after your son was slumped, what did you do?
ATTY. VARGAS: Already answered, your Honor. She said dulo,
end of the sofa. A:       I went to my son and carried him to take him to the hospital.

COURT: Sustained. Q:       How many shots did you hear?

ATTY. OPENA TO WITNESS: A:       Five shots.

Q:       When you said end of sofa which portion, the left side or the Q:       That was prior to helping your son?
right side?
A:       Yes, sir.
A:       The right.
Q:       And how many times was your son hit?
Q:       Now, while you and your son were watching television, was
there anything unusual that transpired? ATTY. VARGAS:

A:       Yes, sir. Q:       Objection, your honor. It was already answered. Because
according to her it was five shots.
Q:       Tell us what was that all about.
COURT: It does not follow that the victim was hit. So, the witness
A:       Mayroon po akong napansin na kamay na nakatutok sa anak may answer.
ko. Nakita ko po si Noel Lee na nakatayo sa may bintana.
WITNESS: Twice, Two shots hit my son, two shots on the sofa and
Q:       What do you mean by the word "kamay?" one shot on the cement.

A:       Hawak hawak po niya iyong baril, nakatutok po sa anak ko. COURT: How about the other one?
A:       Doon po sa semento. A:       I was able to hold on to my son up to the door. Upon
reaching the door, I asked the help of my kumpare.
ATTY. OPENA TO WITNESS:
Q:       Meanwhile, what did the accused do after shooting five
Q:       And who fired these shots? times?

A:       Noel Lee. A:       He ran to the alley to go home.

Q:       That Noel Lee that you are referring to, will you please point Q:       Now you said he ran to an alley towards the direction of their
at him if he is around? house. Do you know where his house is located?

A:       (Witness going down the witness stand and pointing to A:       Yes, sir. 142 M. de Castro Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
accused Noel Lee). City.

Q:       How do you know that it was Noel Lee who shot your son? Q:       How far is that from your residence?

A:       Kitang kita ko po. Magkatapat po kami. A:       More or less 150 to 200 meters.

Q:       Will you please describe to us? Q:       Where did you finally bring your son?

A:       Maliwanag po kasi ang ilaw. Maliwanag din po sa labas, may A:       MCU.
nananahi doon. Nandoon po kaming dalawa ng anak ko nanonood
ng television. (Witness sobbing in tears). Napakasakit sa akin. Q:       When you say MCU, are you referring to MCU Hospital?
Hindi ko man lang naipagtanggol and anak ko.
A:       Yes, sir. MCU Hospital.
COURT: She was emotionally upset.
Q:       At MCU, life-saving devices were attached to my son. Later,
ATTY. OPENA: I’ll just make it on record that the witness was after reaching 11:00, he died.
emotionally upset. May I ask if she can still testify?
COURT: 11:00 P.M.?
x x x      x x x      x x x
A:       Yes, ma’am.
WITNESS: Masakit lang po sa loob ko ang pagkawala ng anak ko.
Q:       Same day?
ATTY. OPENA TO WITNESS:
A:       Yes, ma’am.
Q:       You saw that the light was bright. Where were those lights
coming from? x x x      x x x      x x x."15

A:       Maliwanag po sa loob ng bahay namin dahil may fluorescent Herminia’s testimony is positive, clear and straightforward. She did not waver in her
na bilog. Saka sa labas may nananahi po doon sa alley katapat ng narration of the shooting incident, neither did she waffle in recounting her son’s death.
bahay namin. At saka po doon sa kabila, tindahan po tapat po She was subjected by defense counsel to rigorous cross and re-cross examinations
namin, kaya maliwanag ang ilaw. and yet she stuck to her testimony given in the direct examination. She readily gave
specific details of the crime scene, e.g., the physical arrangement of the sofa and the
Q:       After trying to help your son, what happened? television set, the height of the sofa, the wall and the window, because the crime
happened right in her own living room. She explained that she was unable to warn
Joseph because she was shocked by the sight of accused-appellant aiming a gun at Q:       What you saw from that butas is a hand with a gun, is that
her son. The tragic events unfolded so fast and by the time she took hold of herself, correct?
her son had been shot dead.
A:       Opo.
A son’s death in his mother’s house and in her presence is a painful and agonizing
experience that is not easy for a mother to forget, even with the passing of time. Q:       Madam witness, your window is just like the window of this
Herminia’s testimony shows that she was living with a conscience that haunted and courtroom?
blamed her own self for failing to protect her son or, at least, save him from death.
A:       Yes, sir.
Nonetheless, accused-appellant points out inconsistencies in the eyewitness’
testimony. In her affidavit of September 30, 1996 given before PO2 Rodelio Ortiz,
Herminia declared that while she and Joseph were watching television, she saw a Q:       In your testimony, you did not mention what part of the
hand holding a gun pointed at her son. The hand and the gun came out of a hole in window was that hand holding a gun that you saw? Is that correct?
the window, i.e., "butas ng bintana." On cross-examination, Herminia stated that she
saw a hand holding a gun in the open window, i.e., "bukas na bintana." According to A:       Hindi naman po butas, kundi bukas na bintana. Nakabukas
accused-appellant, this inconsistency is a serious flaw which cannot be repaired by iyong bintana namin.
her statement on the witness stand.
Q:       So in your sinumpaang salaysay in the statement that you
The inconsistency between her affidavit and her testimony was satisfactorily said butas na bintana is not correct?
explained by Herminia on cross-examination:
A:       Mali ho kasi, hindi ko na napansin iyan, kasi ito napansin ko,
"x x x      x x x      x x x kinorect ko.

ATTY. VARGAS COURT: You show to the witness. There, butas na bintana.

Q:       You said that you saw a hand from a hole in the window with WITNESS: Mali po ang letra, Bukas hindi butas.
a gun, is that correct?
x x x      x x x      x x x."16
A:       Bukas na bintana. Not from a hole but from an open window.
Herminia corrected her affidavit by saying in open court that she saw the hand and
Q:       Madam witness, do you recall having executed a sworn the gun coming out of the open window, not from a hole in the window. In her direct
statement before the police, right after the shooting of your son? testimony, Herminia presented a photograph of her living room just the way it looked
from her side on the night of the shooting.17 The sofa on which Joseph was seated is
A:       Yes, sir. against the wall, with the window a few inches above the wall. The window is made of
transparent glass with six (6) vertical glass panes pushing outwards. The entire
window is enclosed by iron grills with big spaces in between the grills. The living room
Q:       I will read to you paragraph 8 of your statement which is is well-lit and the area outside the house is also lit by a fluorescent lamp.
already marked as your Exhibit "A" in which is stated as follows:
"Isalaysay mo nga sa akin ang buong pangyayari? Answer: Sa mga
oras ng alas 9:00 ng gabi petsa 29 ng Setyembre 1996 habang ang Between Herminia’s testimony in open court and her sworn statement, any
aking anak ay nanonood ng palabas sa TV ng basketball malapit sa inconsistency therein does not necessarily discredit the witness.18 Affidavits are
kanyang bintana sa labas at ako naman ay nakaupo sa sopa generally considered inferior to open court declarations because affidavits are taken
katapat ko siya subalit medyo malayo ng konti sa kanya, mayroon ex-parte and are almost always incomplete and inaccurate.19 Oftentimes, they are
akong napansin na kamay na may hawak ng baril at nakaumang sa executed when the affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a
aking anak sa may butas ng bintana," do you recall that? fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident that transpired. 20 They are usually not
prepared by the affiant himself but by another who suggests words to the affiant, or
worse, uses his own language in taking the affiant’s statements.21
A:       Opo.
Accused-appellant argues that since Herminia declared in her affidavit that she saw a head.27 Two slugs were recovered from the victim’s head. Judging from the location
hand coming from the window, she did not see the person holding the gun, let alone and number of wounds sustained, Dr. Cosidon theorized that the assailant could have
who fired it.22 A complete reading of the pertinent portion of Herminia’s affidavit will been more than two feet away from the victim. 28 Both gunshot wounds were serious
refute appellant’s arguments, viz: and fatal.29

"x x x      x x x      x x x Accused-appellant makes capital of Joseph’s bad reputation in their community. He
alleges that the victim’s drug habit led him to commit other crimes and he may have
T - Isalaysay mo nga sa akin and buong pangyayari? been shot by any of the persons from whom he had stolen. 30 As proof of Joseph’s bad
character, appellant presented Herminia’s letter to Mayor Malonzo seeking his
assistance for Joseph’s rehabilitation from drugs. On rebuttal, Herminia admitted that
S – Sa mga oras ng alas 9:00 ng gabi, petsa 29 ng Setyembre she wrote such letter to Mayor Malonzo but denied anything about her son’s
1996, habang ang aking anak ay nanonood ng palabas sa T.V. ng thievery.31
basketball malapit sa aming bintanan [sic] sa labas, at ako naman
ay nakaupo sa sopa katapat ko siya subalit medyo malayo ng
kaunti sa kanya, mayroon akong napansin akong [sic] kamay na Character evidence is governed by Section 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
hawak-hawak na baril na nakaumang sa aking anak sa butas na Evidence, viz:
bintana na nakaawang, maya-maya ng kaunti ay nakarinig na ako
ng putok at ang unang putok ay tumama sa ulo ng aking anak kaya "Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:--
napayuko siya, pagkatapos noon ay sunod-sunod na ang putok na
narinig ko, mga limang beses, kaya kitang kita ko siya ng lapitan (a) In Criminal Cases:
ko ang aking anak at nakita ko itong si NOEL LEE, pagkatapos
noon ay tumakbo na ito papalabas ng iskinita papunta sa
kanila. (1) The accused may prove his good moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
x x x      x x x      x x x."23
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his
It is thus clear that when Herminia approached her son, she saw that the person firing bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait
the gun was accused-appellant. Appellant continued firing and then ran away towards involved in the offense charged.
the direction of his house. This account is not inconsistent with the witness’ testimony
in open court.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party
may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable
Herminia’s declarations are based on her actual account of the commission of the degree the probability or improbability of the offense
crime. She had no ill motive to accuse appellant of killing her son, or at least, testify charged.
falsely against appellant. Accused-appellant himself admitted that he and Herminia
have been neighbors for years and have known each other for a long time. Appellant
is engaged in the business of buying and selling scrap plastic and Herminia used to x x x      x x x      x x x."
work for him as an agent.24 She would not have pointed to appellant if not for the fact
that it was him whom she saw shoot her son.1âwphi1.nêt Character is defined to be the possession by a person of certain qualities of mind and
morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a
Indeed, the Solicitor General points out that it was appellant himself who had strong person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him;
motive to harm or kill Joseph. 25 Appellant revealed that six days before the shooting, his reputation.32 "Good moral character" includes all the elements essential to make
he caught Joseph inside his car attempting to steal the stereo. The alibi that appellant up such a character; among these are common honesty and veracity, especially in all
was drinking with his friends that fateful night of September 29, 1996 does not rule professional intercourse; a character that measures up as good among people of the
out the possibility that he could have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its community in which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the average
commission. The victim’s house is merely two blocks away from appellant’s house citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.33
and could be reached in several minutes.26
The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant
The lone eyewitness’ account of the killing finds support in the medico-legal report. in determining a controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible.
Dr. Rosalie Cosidon found that the deceased sustained two gunshot wounds—one to Ordinarily, if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the
the right of the forehead, and the other, to the left side of the back of the victim’s character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a
popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in two
business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) as evidence of the
have a righteous cause.34 There are exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, state of mind of the accused. 54 The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking
Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both criminal and civil cases. character of the deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the
case may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was
In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1 of Section 51 of Rule 130 provides that the the aggressor.55 When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known violent
accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait character of the deceased is also admissible to show that it produced a reasonable
involved in the offense charged. When the accused presents proof of his good moral belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
character, this strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where good character prompt defensive action was necessary.56
and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit
the crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to
character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged against determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not
him.35 Sub-paragraph 2 provides that the prosecution may not prove the bad moral alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense.
character of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent There is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his
to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. This is intended to avoid unfair violent death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness
prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad character he could have been
but because he is a person of bad character.36 The offering of character evidence on killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.
his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment on the
failure of the defendant to produce such evidence.37 Once the defendant raises the Moreover, proof of the victim’s bad moral character is not necessary in cases of
issue of his good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the murder committed with treachery and premeditation. In People v. Soliman,57 a
defendant’s bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from refutation, would murder case, the defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative
have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon the tribunal.38 character of the deceased. Upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court
disallowed the same. The Supreme Court held:
Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130 refer to character evidence
of the accused.39 And this evidence must be "pertinent to the moral trait involved in "x x x While good or bad moral character may be availed of as
the offense charged," meaning, that the character evidence must be relevant and an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
germane to the kind of the act charged,40 e.g., on a charge of rape, character for commission of an offense (Section 15, Rule 123), 58 such is not
chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a charge necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is
for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. 41 Sub-paragraph (3) of Section committed through treachery or premeditation. The proof of
51 of the said Rule refers to the character of the offended party.42 Character such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show
evidence, whether good or bad, of the offended party may be proved "if it tends to "that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt
charged." Such evidence is most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense defensive action was necessary (Moran, Comments on the Rules of
in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in a rape case.43 Court, 1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126). This rule does not apply to cases of
murder."59
In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied
with frequency in sex offenses and homicide. 44 In rape and acts of lasciviousness or In the case at bar, accused-appellant is charged with murder committed through
in any prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman treachery and evident premeditation. The evidence shows that there was treachery.
where the willingness of a woman is material, the woman’s character as to her Joseph was sitting in his living room watching television when accused-appellant
chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act.45 The peeped through the window and, without any warning, shot him twice in the head.
exception to this is when the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in statutory There was no opportunity at all for the victim to defend himself or retaliate against his
rape46 or rape with violence or intimidation. 47 In the crimes of qualified seduction 48 or attacker. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack ensured his death
consented abduction,49 the offended party must be a "virgin," which is "presumed if without risk to the assailant. Following the ruling in People v. Soliman, where the
she is unmarried and of good reputation," 50 or a "virtuous woman of good killing of the victim was attended by treachery, proof of the victim’s bad character is
reputation."51 The crime of simple seduction involves "the seduction of a woman who not necessary. The presence of this aggravating circumstance negates the necessity
is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen years of age x of proving the victim’s bad character to establish the probability or improbability of the
x x." 52 The burden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in offense charged and, at the same time, qualifies the killing of Joseph Marquez to
the prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the complainant is a murder.
woman of bad reputation.53
As to the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, this cannot be
appreciated to increase the penalty in the absence of direct evidence showing that
accused-appellant deliberately planned and prepared the killing of the victim.60

Neither can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling found by the trial court be
applied in the instant case. The Information alleges only treachery and evident
premeditation, not dwelling. Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, a complaint or Information must specify the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense. 61 The Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000, and Section 8, Rule 110 is
favorable to the accused. It may be applied retroactively to the instant case.

Accordingly, without the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty of death

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision dated June 22, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court,
Caloocan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Case No. C-54012 (98) is affirmed insofar as
accused-appellant Noel Lee is found guilty of murder for the death of Joseph
Marquez. The death sentence imposed by the trial court is however reduced to
reclusion perpetua, there having been no aggravating circumstance in the
commission of said crime. Except for the award of exemplary damages, the award of
civil indemnity, other damages and costs are likewise affirmed.

SO ORDERED.