GR 109619; (June, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109619 June 26, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAUDEMAR DE LA CRUZ y VERDADERO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Laudemar de la Cruz was charged in six Informations for Illegal Possession of Firearm, Murder (for the death of Cesar Macasieb), Frustrated Murder (against Ricardo Fernandez), and three counts of Attempted Murder (against Absalon Villabroza, Nivelly Aliven, and Bernardo Domingo). The charges arose from a shooting incident around 10:00 p.m. on November 29, 1990, at the Crisan Canteen in Dagupan City. The prosecution evidence established that appellant, whom witness Ricardo Fernandez had seen before at a wake, arrived at the canteen, drank beer, went in and out, and suddenly shot Macasieb and then Fernandez. Witness Bernardo Domingo testified that appellant, wearing a jacket and hat, also shot Villabroza, Domingo himself, and Aliven. The victims were taken to the hospital; Macasieb died. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted him of Murder, Frustrated Murder, and three counts of Attempted Murder, aggravating all penalties with nighttime, and acquitted him of Illegal Possession of Firearm. Appellant appealed, questioning witness credibility and the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, and (2) whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly appreciated.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties by deleting the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The Court reiterated the doctrine that trial court findings on witness credibility are entitled to great weight and not disturbed on appeal absent strong reasons, finding no such reasons here as the witnesses’ testimonies were consistent and credible. The Court underscored that nighttime does not automatically aggravate a crime; the prosecution must prove that the accused deliberately sought the darkness, took advantage of it, and benefited from it by ensuring non-identification or capture. The prosecution failed to prove that appellant purposely sought nighttime to commit the crimes. Thus, the penalties were recalculated without nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and actual damages.