GR 127659; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127659 February 24, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOLAS BAHENTING, alias “Colas,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Nicolas Bahenting, was charged with murder for shooting Remegio Rivera in Barangay Basak, Badian, Cebu, on March 6, 1996. The prosecution’s primary witness was the victim’s widow, Generosa Rivera, who testified that she heard a shot at around 4 a.m. and found her husband wounded. She claimed that before he died, her husband clearly identified Bahenting as his assailant. The prosecution also presented a medico-legal report confirming the gunshot wound as the cause of death and the victim’s son, who testified about prior animosity stemming from Bahenting’s alleged attempt to involve him in marijuana planting. The defense consisted solely of Bahenting’s alibi, claiming he was elsewhere at the time of the incident.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly relying on the victim’s alleged dying declaration.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from murder to homicide and reduced the penalty. The Court found the victim’s statement to his wife admissible as a dying declaration under Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court. The requisites were satisfied: the declaration concerned the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death; at the time it was made, he was under a consciousness of impending death; and he was competent as a witness had he survived. The Court found Generosa’s testimony credible, noting the victim spoke in a “very clear voice” immediately after being shot, indicating his awareness of his fatal condition.
However, the Court rejected the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery was not established because the prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced, leaving doubt as to whether the victim was consciously and deliberately targeted in a manner denying him a chance to defend himself. Evident premeditation was also absent, as the evidence of prior resentment did not convincingly show the elements of planning and sufficient time for reflection. Consequently, the crime was homicide, not murder. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum and ordered the accused to pay indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs.