GR 110129; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110129 August 12, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDELCIANO AMACA @ “EDDIE” and “JOHN DOE” @ “OGANG,” accused, EDELCIANO AMACA @ “EDDIE,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Edelciano Amaca was charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for the fatal shooting of Wilson Vergara. The Information specifically alleged that the killing was attended by evident premeditation. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the ante mortem statement of the victim, Vergara, who, while being transported to the hospital, identified his assailants as “CVO Amaca and Ogang” to a police investigator. This statement was reduced to writing and thumbmarked by the victim using his own blood. The victim died the following day. The defense interposed alibi, claiming Amaca was on duty as a Civilian Volunteer Organization member at the time of the incident.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of Murder as qualified by treachery, despite the Information specifically charging the killing as qualified only by evident premeditation.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court held that the victim’s ante mortem statement, made under the consciousness of impending death, possessed all the requisites of a dying declaration and was thus admissible and sufficient to establish the appellant’s identity as one of the assailants. However, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of Murder qualified by treachery. The legal logic is grounded in the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Information charged Murder qualified solely by evident premeditation. Treachery, not alleged in the Information, is a distinct qualifying circumstance. Convicting the appellant of Murder based on treachery would violate his right to due process, as he was not given proper notice to defend against that specific allegation. Any doubt or lapse in the prosecution must inure to the benefit of the accused. Therefore, absent a proven qualifying circumstance, the killing is Homicide. Furthermore, as the heirs of the victim executed an affidavit of desistance waiving their claim, no civil indemnity was awarded. The Court sentenced Amaca to an indeterminate penalty of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.