People v Garcia 399 SCRA 155 March 14, 2003 / Callejo Sr.

Nature of Case: Murder Digest Maker: Jules

People involved:
1. Ismael dela Cruz
2. Ricardo Garcia
3. Wilfredo Sanoy
4. Christopher Garcia
5. Andrew Tomelden
6. Dr. Winston Tan
Killed (an Asst. City Engineer)
Killer (appealed)
Witness (PO3 tasked to be guard and driver of Killed)
Accomplice 1 (nephew of killer)
Accomplice 2 (not a relative of the killer)
Medico-Legal

Events Leading to the Crime:

1. In 1998, Witness was told by the Chief of Police that he is to be the guard and driver of
Killed who has been receiving death threats from the Garcia family.
2. Feb 1999, Wtiness was driving Killed to work when motorists Witness identify as Killer,
Accomplice and Accomplice 2 followed and blocked them ending with Killer shooting Killed
just 1 meter away.
3. Mar 1999, Killed died and Medico-Legal did postmorterm investigations.

Investigation and Evidences:

1. Witness positively identified Killer, Accomplice 1 and Accomplice 2.
2. Witness gave descriptions of what happened that show that the incident really took place in
the same manner as what was investigated to be with only a few inconsistencies (such as
1) whether Killer’s exact position was front or right of the car, 2) whether number of bullets
fired were 3 or 5, 3) whether right arm or chest was shot).
3. Killer already had a previous 1) murder and 2) attempted murder charges prior to the
event.
4. Dagupan RTC convicted Killer despite his statements of defense, which were:
a. On Feb 24 (the day of the murder), he worked in a San Fabian construction site for
the whole day and stayed in San Fabian until May.
b. He also received threats on his life and that Witness himself is a suspect for the
death of Killer’s brother (a barangay captain) prior to the event.

Issues and Resolutions:

1. Aug 2000, Dagupan RTC convicted Killer for murder qualified by treachery and with the
aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle but Killer wanted to appeal with this
ground: Whether Witness was still credible after giving statements inconsistent to
investigative findings
2. SC said yes with the following rebuttals:
a. The court finds the conduct, deportment and demeanor of Witness convincing .
b. Medico-legal acknowledges the possibility that more than 3 bullets were used and
that the Killer being in front or beside Killed.
c. Errorless testimony cannot be expected from Witness due to 1) recounting a
traumatic experience, 2) normal human lapses in memory, 3) his thinking that blood
 drip from Killed’s head to chest was due to a gunshot to the chest, 4) affidavit
recounting usually contain errors.
d. Reckless murders in broad daylights even near government institutions are not
impossible
e. Witness not investigating the whereabouts of Accomplice 1 and 2 cannot be
labelled as a wrong

Final Decision:
1. Killer is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
2. Killer to pay P50,000 (civil indemnity), P25,000 (temperate damages), P25,000 (exemplary
damages), reduced from P100,000 commanded by Malolos RTC) and P1,941,754,68
(unearned income) to the heirs of Killed Driver. (Case law holds that 1) other fees unproven
like funeral expenses will not be awarded and 2) no awards for moral damage is given if no
heirs testify for the prosecution).
3. SC removes from the original RTC decision the aggravation due to use of motor vehicle
because that was not included in the original complaint. (This rule took effect only in Dec
2000 but is given retroactive effect since it is favorable to the culprit.)
4. No dissents or other opinions were given.