PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. 184172, May 8, 2009

Parricide

FACTS:

The prosecution witnesses consists PO3 Escobido the police investigator who responded to the
crime scene; went to the house of appellant and the victim to investigate. He went inside the
bedroom and found blood on the carpeted floor, a 9 mm. caliber pistol and two (2) live
bullets. Appellant disclosed to PO3 Escobido that the spouses had an altercation and appellant
suspected that his wife had an extramarital affair.Appellant then cocked his pistol twice, gave
it to his wife, and told her kung guilty ka, ituloy mo. The victim allegedly took the gun, pointed
it to her head and squeezed the trigger. PO3 Escobido requested a ballistic examination of the
firearm.

Capt. Maunahan conducted an autopsy on the victim. In the Medico-Legal Report No. M-078-
00, it was found that the victim had sustained a gunshot wound and the point of entry was at
the right temporal region, measuring 3x1.8 cm, 15 cm from anterior midline, 9cm from the
vertex, directed slightly anteriorwards, downwards to the left, contusion collar superiorly
0.2cm, there is blackening of bullet tract from scalp up to inner table. In short, the entry of
the bullet was on the right side of the victims head and its trajectory was downward.

On appeal is the 21 January 2008 Decision of the Court of affirming the conviction of
appellant Luis Antonio Garchitorena of the crime of parricide by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City. The accusatory portion of the information reads: That on or about
the16th day of [August 2000], in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being
then the legitimate husband of FLORDELIZA TABLA GARCHITORENA, with intent to kill, did
then and there, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal
violence upon the person of said FLORDELIZA TABL[A] GARCHITORENA, his wife, by then and
there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on the head, thereby inflicting upon her serious and
mortal wound, which was the direct and immediate cause of her untimely death, to the
damage and prejudice of the heirs of said FLORDELIZA TABLA GARCHITORENA.

ISSUE:

Is accused guilty of parricide?

RULING:

YES.The elements of the crime of parricide are: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is
killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, of the accused or any of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.

All the above elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. It was stipulated during
the pre-trial that appellant and the victim are married on 24 August 1999. That the appellant
killed the victim was proven specifically by circumstantial evidence.

As aptly stated by the trial court:

In the instant case, the totality of the circumstances warrant a finding that accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The fact that accused and the deceased were
the only persons in the bedroom when the shooting incident occurred is
undisputed. Secondly, there was an argument between the spouses, as narrated by the
accused to the police investigator and during trial. Thirdly, accused, giving no logical excuse,
got a gun. In this, the Court finds criminal purpose. Also, there is a finding by this Court of
improbability of the deceased shooting herself.

While admittedly there is no direct evidence presented by the prosecution on the killing of
the deceased by the accused, the established circumstances aforestated, however,
constituted an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and with the hypothesis that the
accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other [hypothesis] that he is not. And when
circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of natural and rational circumstances
corroborating each other, it cannot be overcome by inaccurate and doubtful evidence
submitted by the accused.
People v. Maramara
G.R. No. 110994, October 20, 1999

Facts:
A benefit dance sponsored by the Calpi Elementary School Parents-Teachers Association of
which accused-appellant is the president, was held in the yard of accused-appellant’s house
in Barangay Calpi, Claveria, Masbate in the evening of November 18, 1991. At about 12
midnight, while Ricardo Donato was dancing with a certain Rowena del Rosario, one Dante
Arce, a friend of accused-appellant, approached Ricardo Donato and boxed him on the chest.
Frightened, Rowena ran away while Ricardo Donato scampered toward the fence for safety.
Miguelito Donato was about two (2) meters away from where Ricardo Donato stayed at the
fence. Not for long, accused-appellant took his handgun tucked in his waist and fired at
victim Miguelito Donato, hitting the latter on the left breast. Ricardo Donato tried to help his
fallen brother Miguelito but somebody struck Ricardo’s head with an iron bar which knocked
him out for about three (3) minutes. When Ricardo regained consciousness, he hurried home
and informed his parents of what happened to their son Miguelito. Regarder Donato, Miguelito’s
father, immediately went to the crime scene and rushed Miguelito to the Pio Duran Hospital where the
latter died early in the morning of the next day (November 19, 1991). Before Miguelito
expired, Regarder Donato asked who shot him and Miguelito replied that it was accused-
appellant. The accused-appellant was charged with murder and was ruled by the RTC to be
guilty thereof. However, the accused-appellant challenged the findings of the trial court
before the SC in the hope of securing an acquittal or, at the least, being held liable only for
the death of Miguelito in a tumultuous affray.

Issue: 1. W/N accused is guilty of murder?

2. Whether the dying declaration of Miguelito is admissible

Held:
1. No. Guilty of Homicide only

The use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of treachery. In the absence of any
convincing proof that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the
means by which he committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the Court
must resolve doubt in favor of the accused. Accused cannot be held liable only for
death caused in a tumultuous affray because he joined the fray purportedly to pacify
the protagonist before shooting the victim.

2. Yes. Regarder Donatos testimony regarding Miguelitos identification of the accused-

appellant as his assailant certainly qualifies as a dying declaration that is worthy of
credence. For a dying declaration to be admissible in evidence, these requisites must
concur: (1) that death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; (2) that
the declaration refers to the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death; (3)
that the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to; (4)
that the declarant thereafter dies; and (5) that the declaration is offered in a criminal
case wherein the declarants death is the subject of inquiry.[19] The degree and
seriousness of the wounds suffered by the victim Miguelito Donato and the fact that his
death supervened shortly thereafter may be considered as substantial evidence that
the declaration was made by him with the full realization that he was in a dying
condition.[20] The victim Miguelito Donatos dying declaration having satisfied all these
requisites, it must be considered as an evidence of the highest order because, at the
threshold of death, all thoughts of fabrication are stilled. A victims utterance after
sustaining a mortal wound may be considered pure emanations of the incident