PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YBO LASTIMOSA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YBO LASTIMOSA 

G.R. No. 265758 

February 03, 2025     

 

FACTS: 

 

On or about the 17th day of November 2012 at about 4:30 in the afternoon the said accused, armed with a firearm of unknown caliber, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and shot one ILDEFONSO VEGA, JR., with said firearm, thereby inflicting upon him fatal gunshot wounds, and as a consequence of said injuries, Ildefonso Vega, Jr. died. Instantaneously.  The RTC found Lastimosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide. The CA found Lastimosa guilty of the crime of Murder, instead of Homicide.  

 

ISSUES: 

 

1. 1. Whether the Court a Quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  

2. 
   

2. 2. Whether the CA erred in convicting the accused of murder despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery.  

 

RULING: 

 

The SC found the Accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

The elements for the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: "(1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248. . .; and (4) that the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide."    

 

The SC held that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the presence of all the elements of the crime of Murder.    

 

First, the prosecution established the fact of death of Ildefonso through the testimony of his wife, Dureza. Second, Lastimosa's identity as the perpetrator of the crime was established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of Cañeda, Cortes, and Dureza and the physical evidence corroborating the same.  Third, the prosecution established the qualifying circumstance of treachery. However, it failed to prove the presence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation.   

 

Here, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are alleged in general terms, without specifically describing the acts committed by Lastimosa that would constitute the qualifying circumstances. The Court cited the case of People v. Solar where it declared that "it is insufficient for prosecutors to indicate in an Information that the act supposedly committed by the accused was done 'with treachery' or 'with abuse of superior strength' or 'with evident premeditation' without specifically describing the acts done by the accused that made any or all of such circumstances present." Thus, the Court required that the Information state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstances. 

In Solar, the SC laid the following guidelines: 

Relative thereto, Solar laid down the following guidelines:  

1. Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance — in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations in which it may exist, such as but are not limited to (1) treachery; (2) abuse of superior strength; (3) evident premeditation; (4) cruelty — is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3(e)(i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said Rules.  

Failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.  

Alternatively, prosecutors may sufficiently aver the ultimate facts relative to a qualifying or aggravating circumstance by referencing the pertinent portions of the resolution finding probable cause against the accused, which resolution should be attached to the Information in accordance with the second guideline below.  

2. Prosecutors must ensure compliance with Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure that mandates the attachment to the Information the resolution finding probable cause against the accused. Trial courts must ensure that the accused is furnished a copy of this Decision prior to the arraignment.  

3. Cases which have attained finality prior to the promulgation of this Decision will remain final by virtue of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.  

4. For cases which are still pending before the trial court, the prosecution, when still able, may file a motion to amend the Information pursuant to the prevailing Rules in order to properly allege the aggravating or qualifying circumstance pursuant to this Decision.  

5. For cases in which a judgment or decision has already been rendered by the trial court and is still pending appeal, the case shall be judged by the appellate court depending on whether the accused has already waived his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, (i.e., whether he previously filed either a motion to quash under Section 3(e), Rule 117, or a motion for a bill of particulars) pursuant to this Decision. 

It is observed that, at the time of the promulgation of Solar on August 6, 2019, the June 1, 2018 Judgment of the RTC was pending appeal before the CA. Thus, the fifth guideline in Solar is applicable. The CA should have determined whether Lastimosa had already waived his right to assail the defective statement of the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the Information against him. Unfortunately, the February 11, 2022 Decision is silent on this point. Thus, the SC considered this matter and determined whether Lastimosa has waived said right.  

Here, Lastimosa did not question the failure to specifically allege the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation in the Information against him. He also did not file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars on said ground. Pursuant to Solar, Lastimosa is deemed to have waived his right to question the same. Thus, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation may be appreciated against him. 

Lastimosa's contention that the corpus delicti was not proven since neither the autopsy report nor the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy was presented during trial was misplaced. The SC held that Dureza’s testimony sufficiently establishes the fact of death of her husband. Suffice to say that the submission of an autopsy report or the testimony of the medico-legal officer who conducted said autopsy is not an essential requisite of the crime of Murder.  

The SC held that Pursuant to Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, in conjunction with Rule 4, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the duplicate of any original, whether an electronic data message, electronic document, or paper-based document, is admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) under the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.  

A photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as the original absent any genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or a showing that it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. 

 

The SC held that the duplicate of the death certificate of Ildefonso is admissible in evidence. The Court is aware that the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence took effect on May 1, 2020, while the duplicate of the death certificate was marked as Exhibit "B" on August 28, 2014. Nonetheless, it is well-established that rules of procedure may be given retroactive effect. In this case, no question has been raised as to the authenticity of the original death certificate. There is also no allegation, much less proof, that it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate. Accordingly, the duplicate of the death certificate of Ildefonso, marked as Exhibit "B" by the RTC, is admissible to the same extent as the original.   

 

The SC further held that there is no merit to the defense's contention that the prosecution witnesses are not credible.  The testimonies of Cañeda and Cortes are straightforward and convincing. 

 

Further, in the face of Cañeda and Cortes's positive identification of Lastimosa, his defense of denial and alibi was not considered by the SC. The Court has repeatedly held that "[d]enial is inherently a weak defense which cannot outweigh positive testimony. A categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime and it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Here, Lastimosa failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at Cansojong, Talisay, Cebu City. 

 

The prosecution established the qualifying circumstance of treachery. However, it failed to prove the presence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. The SC emphasized that "the essence of this circumstance of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment." Here, there is nothing to suggest that Lastimosa clung to his determination to commit the crime despite a lapse of sufficient time prior to its commission. There is no showing of cool thought and reflection on the part of Lastimosa as to his resolve to kill Ildefonso.  

 

Hence, the SC affirmed the decision of the CA. Accused-appellant Ybo Lastimosa was found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 

*Link to full text here