CRIMINAL LAW>Criminal Law 2>Murder

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
DOMINGO DILLA y PAULAR, Accused-Appellant
G.R. No. 200333, January 21, 2015
(Second Division)

DOCTRINE: The testimonies of prosecution witnesses established without a shadow of doubt that it was
appellant who mercilessly killed the victim. Based on the testimonies, the attack was treacherous as
appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim.

FACTS: Appellant was charged with murder for the death of his brother, Pepito Dillo. Based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution, at 5:30 PM at Sitio Ilaud, Himaao, Pili, Camarines Sur, Pepito was working
on his farm when appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim with a gun hitting him on his left thigh.
Pepito managed to run but was overtaken by appellant who then stabbed him with a bolo. The son of the
victim, Pepito, Jr., and Mary Renegado witnessed the incident. Appellant presented a different version and
claimed that Pepito was the aggressor. He said that Pepito challenged him to a fight which he dismissed,
but Pepito pursued him. In the struggle to possess the gun and bolo, appellant struck Pepito with a wrench,
but denied having fired the gun.

RTC found appellant guilty of murder and found his tale self-serving in view of his positive identification by
the prosecution witnesses. Lending credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, RTC held
that the attack was perpetrated by appellant and that the attack was treacherous as appellant suddenly
appeared and shot the victim. CA affirmed the RTC Decision convicting appellant and the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder

HELD: YES.

The records belie appellant’s contention that there was no direct roof identifying him as the perpetrator of
the crime. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Pepito, Jr. and Renegado, established without a
shadow of doubt that it was appellant who mercilessly killed Pepito. In his testimony, Pepito, Jr. stated that
he witnessed the appellant chasing his father who was then shot and stabbed by appellant. His testimony
was corroborated in all material points by the testimony of Renegado.

Both the RTC and CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and
properly sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Moreover, appellant is not eligible for
parole pursuant to Section 3 of RA 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines.