G.R. No. 201858, June 4, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jenny Likiran alias “Loloy”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jenny Likiran was convicted of Murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City for the death of Rolando Sareno, Sr. The incident occurred on March 19, 2000, during a barrio dance in Bukidnon. Prosecution witnesses testified that after a commotion where the accused-appellant’s brother, Jerome, punched a person, Jerome shot Sareno several times. While Sareno was fallen, the accused-appellant stabbed him on the back. The accused-appellant denied involvement, claiming he was inside the dance area and only heard gunshots. The RTC found the prosecution established the accused-appellant’s culpability based on the positive identification by witness Celso Dagangon, who was three meters away. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision but found no conspiracy and held that only treachery attended the crime. The accused-appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his identity and culpability beyond reasonable doubt, noting the information charged him with both stabbing and shooting but evidence showed another person was the shooter.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the accused-appellant is criminally liable for the death of Sareno despite evidence that another person inflicted the gunshot wounds.
3. Whether the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying the crime to murder.

RULING

1. Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and CA, affirming the credibility of prosecution witness Celso Dagangon. His positive identification of the accused-appellant, from a distance of three meters with no distractions, was entitled to greater weight than the accused-appellant’s denial and alibi. There was no showing of ill motive on the part of the witness.
2. Yes. The accused-appellant is criminally liable. During the pre-trial, the defense admitted the Certificate of Death as proof of the fact and cause of death, which listed “Stab wound scapular area (L)” as an underlying cause alongside gunshot wounds. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an offender is liable for the death if his felonious act caused, accelerated, or contributed to it. Thus, the stab wound inflicted by the accused-appellant contributed to Sareno’s death.
3. No. The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts’ finding of treachery. The evidence indicated the attack was a spur-of-the-moment incident resulting from a brawl at the dance, not a deliberately planned execution. The prosecution failed to prove that the means of attack were consciously adopted to ensure no defense from the victim. Consequently, the crime is Homicide, not Murder.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The award of civil indemnity and damages was also modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.