View full case

PEOPLE v. VS.EDELCIANO AMACA

FACTS:

On October 1, 1990, the accused Edelciano Amaca and an unidentified person, alleged to be called "Ogang", attacked and shot Wilson Vergara, resulting in his death. The victim was brought to Guihulngan District Hospital where he later died due to multiple gunshot wounds. Dr. Edgar Pialago, a resident physician at the hospital, testified that the victim suffered from multiple organ system failure and had two gunshot wounds in his back. The bullets were found inside his body with no exit wounds. Police investigator Bernardo Mangubat testified that the victim identified Amaca and "Ogang" as the perpetrators of the crime. He also obtained a written declaration from the victim, with his thumbmark in blood, affirming the identity of Amaca and "Ogang". During the trial, the accused invoked the defense of alibi and presented witnesses to support his claim that he was on duty at a different location during the time of the incident. The mother of the victim and her son-in-law both desisted from further prosecuting the case, but the Department of Justice found that a prima facie case existed based on the victim's ante mortem statement. The trial court convicted Amaca of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but did not make a finding on his civil liability due to the desistance of the victim's mother.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the ante mortem statement of the victim is sufficient to identify the assailant.

  2. Whether the accused can be convicted of murder when the Information charged him with murder qualified only by evident premeditation.

  3. Whether civil indemnity should be awarded to the heirs of the victim.

RULING:

  1. The ante mortem statement of the victim is sufficient to identify the assailant. A dying declaration is generally credible as it is made by someone aware of impending death and without motive to lie. The victim's identification of his assailant in such a state was upheld.

  2. The accused cannot be convicted of murder attended by treachery because the Information charged him with murder qualified only by evident premeditation. The absence of allegations of treachery in the Information means it cannot legally be considered, benefiting the accused. Thus, the conviction is for homicide and not murder.

  3. No civil indemnity should be awarded to the heirs of the victim. The waiver of civil indemnity by the victim's heirs through an affidavit of desistance is upheld, and hence, no civil indemnity is included in the decision.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Dying Declaration Exception to the hearsay rule; it is credible because the declarant, aware of impending death, has no motive to lie.

  2. Charge and Conviction Limits An accused can only be convicted for the crime they are charged with or necessarily included therein; any reasonable doubt must favor the accused.

  3. Evident Premeditation vs. Treachery Evidence of treachery must be explicitly charged in the Information; failing which, the accused cannot be convicted based on treachery.

  4. Civil Indemnity Desistance or waiver by the heirs through an affidavit impacts the award of civil indemnity in a criminal conviction.

  5. Evidence Consideration Ante mortem statements and res gestae hold dual admissibility in ensuring identification of the assailant.