GR 201572; (July, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201572 , July 9, 2014
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Rael Delfin, Appellant.
FACTS
On the night of September 27, 2000, Emilio Enriquez was gunned down at a store across his home in Navotas City. Appellant Rael Delfin was charged with murder. The information alleged the crime was committed “on or about the 27th day of November 2000.” During trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness Joan Cruz, the victim’s live-in partner, who testified she saw appellant seated near the victim, heard a gunshot, rushed outside, and saw appellant fire another shot at the already fallen victim. Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez, a PNP physician, confirmed the victim died from two gunshot wounds. The defense presented appellant’s alibi that he was fishing in Bataan at the time, corroborated initially by Rene Villanueva, who later admitted their fishing trip was from September 26 to 27, 2000, meaning they were in Navotas City at the time of the shooting. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded.
ISSUE
1. Whether the variance between the date of the crime alleged in the information (November 27, 2000) and the date established during trial (September 27, 2000) invalidates the information and violates appellant’s right to be informed of the charge.
2. Whether the appellant’s alibi should prevail over the prosecution’s evidence.
3. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated.
RULING
1. The variance in the date does not invalidate the information. In crimes like murder where the date is not a material element, the Rules of Court only require stating the approximate date. The erroneous allegation is deemed supplanted by the evidence presented at trial. The discrepancy here (a two-month difference) is not so great as to suggest the information and evidence refer to different offenses, unlike in People v. Opemia where a five-year variance was deemed fatal.
2. The appellant’s alibi cannot prevail. Alibi is a weak defense and cannot stand against the positive identification by an eyewitness. The defense witness’s testimony ultimately placed appellant in Navotas City at the time of the crime.
3. Treachery was properly appreciated. The attack was sudden and unexpected, without any provocation or altercation, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself. The eyewitness testified she heard a gunshot and then saw appellant fire another shot at the already fallen victim, indicating the means of execution ensured the attack without risk to the appellant.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder, upholding the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.