G.R. No. L-860; April 29, 1947
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELFIN CRUZ (alias LUCIANO NAPONE, alias MANOC), defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Delfin Cruz, was convicted of homicide for the killing of Margarito Moreno and sentenced to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs. He was denied the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law due to an escape from prison. The prosecution presented several witnesses: Quirino Basco testified that on the afternoon of August 29, 1945, in front of the Malayan Grill in Pasay, Rizal, he saw appellant fire a .45 caliber revolver twice at Margarito Moreno from about ten meters away, after which appellant left in a jeep. Detective Romulo Gorospe testified that appellant admitted to the shooting in a sworn statement (Exhibit A), which was translated to him as he could not read or speak English, and that a .45 caliber pistol was recovered from appellant. Dr. Mariano B. Lara identified the autopsy report (Exhibit B) showing fatal wounds. Faustino Gonzaga, an employee at the Malayan Grill, testified that around 4:30 p.m. on August 30, 1945, he heard a shot, went outside, and saw appellant shoot Moreno from about five meters away; Moreno was dead when Gonzaga saw him, and appellant then boarded a jeep. Appellant’s own statement in Exhibit A detailed the events: he was in a jeep with two Americans when one American was boxed by a Filipino (later identified as Moreno) after a near-accident; they later returned to look for dropped eyeglasses, and upon seeing the same Filipino approaching, appellant alighted with a gun and fired twice, claiming he acted out of fear that the Filipino would assault them again and that he did not intend to kill. The defense presented no evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Delfin Cruz is guilty of homicide for killing Margarito Moreno.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended decision of the lower court, finding appellant guilty of homicide. The Court held that the evidence of the prosecution, particularly appellant’s own admission in Exhibit A, considered together with the testimonies of the witnesses, conclusively proved appellant’s guilt. While noting some unsatisfactory details in the witnesses’ testimonies, the Court found appellant’s confession, corroborated by the other evidence and uncontroverted by any defense evidence, sufficient to sustain the conviction. The crime was punishable as homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The sentence was affirmed with costs.