GR 148877; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148877 ; August 19, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT, Appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of September 12, 1999, in Batangas City, prosecution witness Richard Sison was inside his house when he saw appellant Angelito Bagsit, a relative, point a gun through their grilled window at his father, Pepito Sison. Richard heard a gunshot and saw his father fall. Pepito died shortly after being rushed to the hospital. Another witness, Zenaida Aguilar, testified that she saw appellant, carrying a gun, pass by her house moments before hearing a gunshot. She then saw the victim being carried, awash in blood. Appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was drunk at a drinking session elsewhere and spent the night leaning on a fence. The trial court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) the validity of appellant’s warrantless arrest; (2) the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ identification; and (3) the correctness of the conviction for murder and the imposition of the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages. First, any defect in the warrantless arrest was cured when appellant, assisted by counsel, voluntarily pleaded at arraignment and actively participated in the trial, thereby submitting to the court’s jurisdiction and waiving any objection. Second, the positive identification by eyewitness Richard Sison, who knew appellant well, prevails over the weak defense of denial and alibi. The Court found Richard’s account credible and consistent, noting that the defense failed to present alleged drinking companions to corroborate the alibi. The claim of drunkenness was also negated by appellant’s detailed recollection of his movements that night. Third, the killing constituted murder qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind a window grill, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself. The special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm and the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling were properly appreciated. The penalty of death was correctly imposed, though the Court modified the awarded damages to the victim’s heirs.