GR 130499; (October, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130499 ; October 5, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ “NOEL QUIMSON,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of August 17, 1995, a blue Toyota Tamaraw FX carrying Romeo Matias, Sr., Crisaldo Guimba, Raul Rendor, Glenda Villareal, and driver Antonio Flores was ambushed along Colon St. in Ligao, Albay. Gunmen fired upon the vehicle, resulting in the immediate deaths of Matias and Guimba. Villareal later died in the hospital. Rendor and Flores, though wounded, managed to escape. Rendor was brought to the hospital where, before his death days later, he gave statements to his relatives and later to police investigators identifying accused-appellant Pamfilo Quimson as one of the assailants. Police recovered 39 empty shells at the scene, and ballistic analysis indicated the vehicle was fired upon from the right side and rear.
An Information was filed charging Quimson with Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation. The prosecution presented the ante-mortem statements of Raul Rendor, along with testimonial and physical evidence. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming Quimson was elsewhere at the time. The Regional Trial Court found Quimson guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Pamfilo Quimson for the crime of Multiple Murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to the dying declaration of Raul Rendor. As a victim who subsequently died from his wounds, Rendor’s statements to his relatives at the scene and his sworn statement to the police, made under a consciousness of impending death, constitute a valid dying declaration, an exception to the hearsay rule. This declaration, which positively identified Quimson, was corroborated by the physical evidence and the trajectory of the gunfire.
The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated, as it was not physically impossible for Quimson to have been at the crime scene. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and from ambush, rendering the victims defenseless. The Court also affirmed the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, established by proof of prior planning. However, the penalty was modified. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of murder, as the requisite votes for its imposition were not obtained. The awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages were affirmed.