View full case

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND MATITO Y TORRES

FACTS:

On October 16, 1998, Mariano Raymundo Jr. was shot and killed in his backyard. His wife, Filomena Raymundo, witnessed the incident and identified the accused, Ferdinand Matito, as the shooter. Mariano was taken to the hospital but was pronounced dead. Dr. Manuel Aves conducted an autopsy and confirmed that Mariano sustained fatal gunshot wounds, including one on his neck. The police conducted paraffin tests on the appellant and his father, resulting in a positive finding for powder nitrates on the appellant's hand. Witnesses testified to incidents preceding the shooting, such as Mariano cutting off the water supply to the appellant's house and the appellant cursing Mariano while intoxicated. The defense presented witnesses who claimed that Mariano was already dead and unable to speak before passing away. Dr. Aves also testified about the victim's gunshot wounds.

The accused, Ferdinand Matito, was charged with the killing of Mariano Raymundo Jr. The prosecution presented the victim's widow, who stated that her husband identified the accused as the person who shot him before he died. The prosecution also offered circumstantial evidence, including nitrate powder found on the accused's hand, a heated argument between the accused and the victim over a water supply issue, the accused's refusal to widen the right of way near his house, and threatening remarks made by the accused to the victim's daughter. The defense presented a doctor who testified that the victim's severe neck injury would have rendered him unable to speak. The accused denied any involvement and presented alibi witnesses who claimed he was at home with his family during the incident. The trial court convicted the accused based on the prosecution's evidence and rejected his defenses. The accused appealed, contending that the victim's statement should not be considered a dying declaration and that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case involving Angelito Dela Cruz, he was charged and convicted of murder. The prosecution alleged that Dela Cruz attacked the victim with a wooden stick, causing his death. Three witnesses testified for the prosecution, with Witness A seeing Dela Cruz entering the victim's house and hearing a commotion, Witness B witnessing Dela Cruz striking the victim with a wooden stick, and Witness C hearing loud noises from the victim's house and later seeing Dela Cruz leaving. Dela Cruz denied involvement and claimed to be working during the incident. He presented alibi witnesses to support his claim. The trial court found Dela Cruz guilty based on the prosecution's evidence, deeming the prosecution witnesses credible and the alibi witnesses lacking credibility. Dela Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. Dissatisfied, Dela Cruz filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testimonies of the victim's wife and daughter are sufficient to establish appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.

  2. Whether the presence of nitrate powder on the cast taken from appellant's hand is sufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

  3. Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and nighttime can be appreciated in convicting the appellant.

  4. What is the proper penalty to be imposed on the appellant for the crime of homicide?

  5. What are the pecuniary liabilities of the appellant in favor of the victim's heirs?

RULING:

  1. The testimonies of the victim's wife and daughter are credible and sufficient to establish appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. The wife's testimony regarding the dying declaration of the victim, wherein he identified appellant as the one who shot him, is admissible and reliable. The daughter also testified that she saw appellant on the day of the incident and he made threats against her father. Appellant's denial and alibi are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence and are therefore not given weight.

  2. The presence of nitrate powder on the cast taken from appellant's hand is considered strong evidence that he recently fired a gun. Appellant's argument that the nitrate powder may have been planted by the police is not persuasive since it is based on mere speculation. The presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties applies in this case, and appellant failed to present any evidence to support his claim of police misconduct.

  3. The aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and nighttime cannot be appreciated in convicting the appellant. Treachery cannot be assumed when there is no clear showing that the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure the victim's death. Evident premeditation cannot be considered without any evidence of the time when the appellant determined to commit the crime, clung to such determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences. Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance without showing that the darkness facilitated the crime and was purposely sought by the appellant.

  4. The appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. In the absence of any qualifying or aggravating circumstance, the penalty is to be imposed in its medium period, which ranges from 14 years, eight months, and one day, to 17 years and four months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is also applicable.

  5. The appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto and another P50,000 as moral damages. The civil indemnity ex delicto is reduced from P75,000 to P50,000, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The moral damages awarded are for the pain and difficulty experienced by the victim's family, considering that the victim was the breadwinner and the widow had to shoulder his responsibilities.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, is in the best position to discern their credibility. Thus, its factual findings are accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is arbitrariness or oversight of significant facts or circumstances.

  • A dying declaration or statement in articulo mortis may be received in evidence if it meets the requisites under Section 37 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

  • In order for circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Dying Declaration - A dying declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. It is given great weight and credence, especially when it is the sole or principal evidence pointing to the identity of the perpetrator.

  • Presumption of Regularity - Police authorities enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. The burden of proving any irregularity or misconduct rests on the accused, and mere allegations without clear and convincing evidence are insufficient to discredit the presumption.

  • Alibi and Denial - Alibi and denial are weak defenses that must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence to be given weight. The accused must prove that it was not only physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene, but also that there is no other evidence linking them to the crime.

  • Treachery cannot be assumed when there is no clear showing that the mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure the victim's death.

  • Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated without evidence of the time when the appellant determined to commit the crime, clung to such determination, and a sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences.

  • Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance if it is not shown that the darkness facilitated the crime and was purposely sought by the appellant.

  • The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, to be imposed in its medium period in the absence of any qualifying or aggravating circumstance.

  • The civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages may be reduced based on prevailing jurisprudence.