FACTS:

On May 27, 1998, accused-appellant Noel Lee was charged with the crime of murder for the killing of Joseph Marquez. The prosecution presented witnesses who established that on September 29, 1996, accused-appellant was seen peering through the window holding a gun aimed at Joseph Marquez, who was shot in the head. Joseph slumped on the sofa, and accused-appellant fired several more shots before fleeing. Herminia Marquez, the mother of the victim, brought Joseph to the hospital where he later died. A post-mortem examination revealed gunshot wounds on Joseph's head. Joseph had two children who are now under Herminia's care. Herminia incurred funeral and burial expenses amounting to P90,000, supported by receipts.

The accused-appellant, a well-known figure in the neighborhood with pending criminal cases, denies the killing of Joseph Marquez. Accused-appellant claims that he was at home drinking and singing with his neighbor and driver on the evening of September 29, 1996. He woke up the next morning to learn of Joseph Marquez's death and was surprised to be tagged as the killer. Accused-appellant presented a letter written by the victim's mother, which addressed the victim's drug addiction and thieving habits, suggesting an alternative motive. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. Accused-appellant appeals the decision, questioning the credibility and consistency of the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness, Herminia Marquez.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Herminia's testimony is credible and reliable despite alleged inconsistencies.

2. Whether Herminia's identification of the accused as the perpetrator is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether there is inconsistency between the witness' sworn statement and her testimony in open court.

4. Whether the witness' testimony is credible and reliable.

5. Whether the accused had a motive to harm the victim.

6. Whether character evidence is admissible in the case.

7. Is the character or reputation of a party admissible as evidence in determining a controversy?

8. What are the exceptions to the rule that character evidence is not admissible?

9. When can the character of the accused be proven in a criminal case?

10. Can the prosecution present evidence of the accused's bad character?

11. When can the character of the offended party be proven in a criminal case?

12. In what situations is the character of the victim admissible in a homicide case?

13. Was the proof of the victim's bad character relevant in this case?

14. Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the defense's attempt to prove the violent, quarrelsome, or provocative character of the deceased.

15. Whether the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and dwelling are present in the case.

16. Whether the penalty of death is appropriate given the absence of aggravating circumstances.

17. Whether the award of exemplary damages is justified.

RULING:

1. The inconsistencies in Herminia's testimony were satisfactorily explained on cross-examination. While there may have been differences in her statements, these do not undermine the overall credibility and reliability of her testimony. Herminia's testimony was clear, consistent, and detailed. She provided specific details about the crime scene and did not waver in her account of the shooting incident and her son's death. Herminia's emotional state during her testimony was understandable given the traumatic experience she went through. Her consistent and unwavering testimony strengthens her credibility as a witness.

2. Herminia positively identified the accused, Noel Lee, as the person who shot her son. She clearly pointed to Lee inside the courtroom as the perpetrator. Herminia's identification of Lee was bolstered by the fact that she and Lee were facing each other with a bright light illuminating the area. The presence of sufficient lighting provided ample opportunity for Herminia to clearly see and identify Lee as the shooter. The trial court found Herminia's identification of Lee to be credible and reliable. As such, the identification, coupled with Herminia's consistent and credible testimony, is sufficient to establish Lee's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Any inconsistency between the witness' sworn statement and her testimony in open court does not necessarily discredit the witness. Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court declarations because they are often incomplete and inaccurate. They are usually not prepared by the affiant himself but by another person who suggests words to the affiant, thus raising the possibility of inaccuracies.

4. The witness' declarations are based on her actual account of the crime. She had no ill motive to accuse the accused or testify falsely against him. The witness' testimony is credible and reliable, especially considering her long acquaintance with the accused.

5. The accused himself admitted to catching the victim attempting to steal from his car, providing him a strong motive to harm or kill the victim. The alibi that the accused was drinking with friends on the night of the crime does not rule out the possibility that he could have been at the scene of the crime.

6. Character evidence is generally not admissible in criminal cases, unless it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. In this case, the character evidence presented regarding the victim's alleged drug habit and theft is not relevant to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

7. The character or reputation of a party is generally regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so evidence relating thereto is not admissible.

8. Exceptions to the rule are provided in Section 51, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

9. In a criminal case, the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. This strengthens the presumption of innocence.

10. The prosecution may only prove the bad moral character of the accused in rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

11. The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. This is commonly used in sex offenses and homicide cases.

12. The character of the victim is admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased's aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused.

13. In this case, the proof of the victim's bad character was irrelevant as it did not have a connection with his violent death in the hands of the accused. The claim that the victim could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen was pure speculation.

14. The trial court did not err in disallowing the defense's attempt to prove the character of the deceased. In murder cases where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation, the proof of the victim's character is not necessary. Such proof may only be allowed in homicide cases to show the imminent danger in the mind of the accused and the justifiable conviction that defensive action was necessary. This rule does not apply to murder cases.

15. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in the absence of direct evidence showing that the accused deliberately planned and prepared the killing of the victim. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling, likewise, cannot be applied since it was not properly alleged in the Information.

16. Without the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty of death imposed by the trial court was erroneous. The penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

17. Since there are no aggravating circumstances, there is no basis for the award of exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Credibility of witnesses - Inconsistencies in witness testimony do not automatically render the testimony incredible. Inconsistencies can be satisfactorily explained and do not undermine the overall credibility and reliability of the witness if the testimony remains clear, consistent, and detailed.

• Identification of accused - Positive and credible identification by a witness can establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Factors such as the presence of sufficient lighting, the distance between the witness and the accused, and the opportunity to clearly observe and identify the accused are relevant in evaluating the credibility of the identification.

• Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court declarations because they are often incomplete and inaccurate.

• Sworn statements made ex-parte may contain inaccuracies as they are often not prepared by the affiant himself but by another person.

• Inconsistencies between a witness' sworn statement and her testimony in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness.

• Witness credibility depends on the witness' actual account of the crime, lack of ill motive, and long acquaintance with the accused.

• Character evidence is generally not admissible in criminal cases, unless it tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

• The character or reputation of a party is generally legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so evidence relating thereto is not admissible.

• Exceptions to the rule are provided in Section 51, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

• In a criminal case, the accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. This strengthens the presumption of innocence.

• The prosecution may only prove the bad moral character of the accused in rebuttal and when such evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.

• The character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.

• The character of the victim is admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceased's aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused.

• Proof of the victim's character is not necessary in murder cases where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. Such proof may only be allowed in homicide cases.

• The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation requires direct evidence showing that the accused deliberately planned and prepared the killing of the victim.

• The aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be properly alleged in the Information.

• The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure can be applied retroactively to cases if it is favorable to the accused.