G.R. No.
139070 May 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
NOEL LEE, accused-appellant.
PUNO, J.:
Facts:
information was filed against
accused-appellant charging him with the crime of murder committed. Accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the prosecution presented the
following witnesses: (a) Herminia Marquez, the mother of the victim; (b) Dr.
Darwin Corpuz, a resident doctor at the Manila Caloocan University (MCU)
Hospital; (c) PO2 Rodelio Ortiz, a police officer who examined the crime scene;
and (d) Dr. Rosaline Cosidon, a medico-legal officer of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
Herminia Marquez, 46 years of age and her son,
Joseph, 26 years of age, were in the living room of their house located at No.
173 General Evangelista St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The living room was
brightly lit by a circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. Outside their house
was an alley leading to General Evangelista Street. The alley was bright and
bustling with people and activity. There were women sewing garments on one side
and on the other was a store catering to customers. In their living room,
mother and son were watching a basketball game on television. Herminia was
seated on an armchair and the television set was to her left.
Across her, Joseph sat on a sofa against the
wall and window of their house and the television was to his right. Herminia
looked away from the game and casually glanced at her son. To her complete
surprise, she saw a hand holding a gun coming out of the open window behind
Joseph. She looked up and saw accused-appellant Noel Lee peering through
the window and holding the gun aimed at Joseph. Before she could warn him, Joseph
turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, appellant fired his gun
hitting Joseph’s head. Joseph slumped on the sofa. Herminia stood up but
could not move as accused-appellant fired a second shot at Joseph and three (3)
shots more— two hit the sofa and one hit the cement floor. When no more shots
were fired, Herminia ran to the window and saw accused-appellant, in a
blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house. Herminia
turned to her son, dragged his body to the door and shouted for help. With the
aid of her neighbor and kumpare, Herminia brought Joseph to the MCU
Hospital where he later died
Herminia filed a complaint for murder against
accused-appellant.
Appellant is a well-known figure in their
neighborhood and has several criminal cases pending against him in Caloocan
City. He was charged with frustrated homicide in 1984 and attempted murder in
1989. seph
had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict. Six days
before his death, on September 23, 1996, accused-appellant caught Joseph inside
his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph scampered away. As proof of the
victim’s bad reputation, appellant presented a letter handwritten by his
mother, Herminia, addressed to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and
sent through PO3 Willy Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, Herminia
was surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was hooked
on shabu, a prohibited drug, and was a thief. Herminia was scared that
eventually Joseph might not just steal but kill her and everyone in their
household because of his drug habit
Trial Court Found accused-appellant guilty.
Issue(s):
Whether proof of the bad moral
character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or
improbability of his killing
Held:
Yes.
Accused-appellant makes capital of
Joseph’s bad reputation in their community. He alleges that the victim’s drug
habit led him to commit other crimes and he may have been shot by any of the
persons from whom he had stolen.30 As proof of Joseph’s bad
character, appellant presented Herminia’s letter to Mayor Malonzo seeking his
assistance for Joseph’s rehabilitation from drugs. On rebuttal, Herminia
admitted that she wrote such letter to Mayor Malonzo but denied anything about
her son’s thievery.31
Character evidence is governed by
Section 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, viz:
"Section 51.
Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:--
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good
moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the
prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral
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.
x x
x x x x x
x x."
Character is defined to be the possession by a person of
certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him from others. It is the
opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the
people who are acquainted with him; his reputation. "Good moral character" includes
all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are common
honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse; a character
that measures up as good among people of the community in which the person
lives, or that is up to the standard of the average citizen; that status which
attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.
The rule is that the character or
reputation of a party is regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a
controversy, so that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily,
if the issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of the
character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt to have the
aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual inquiry into the merits
of the case. After all, the business of the court is to try the case, and not
the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause.34 There
are exceptions to this rule however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the
exceptions in both criminal and civil cases.
In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1
of Section 51 of Rule 130 provides that the accused may prove his good moral
character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged. When the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this
strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where good character and
reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused did not commit
the crime charged. This view proceeds from the theory that a person of good
character and high reputation is not likely to have committed the act charged
against him. Sub-paragraph 2 provides that the prosecution may not prove
the bad moral character of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such
evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. This
is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused who might otherwise be
convicted not because he is guilty but because he is a person of bad
character. The offering of character evidence on his behalf is a privilege
of the defendant, and the prosecution cannot comment on the failure of the
defendant to produce such evidence. Once the defendant raises the issue of
his good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the
defendant’s bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from refutation,
would have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon the
tribunal.
Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of
Section 51 of Rule 130 refer to character evidence of the accused. And
this evidence must be "pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged," meaning, that the character evidence must be relevant
and germane to the kind of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape,
character for chastity; on a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or
violence; on a charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. Sub-paragraph
(3) of Section 51 of the said Rule refers to the character of the offended
party. Character evidence, whether good or bad, of the offended party
may be proved "if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged." Such evidence is
most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or
homicide case or a claim of consent in a rape case.
In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral
character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and
homicide. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution
involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman where the
willingness of a woman is material, the woman’s character as to her chastity is
admissible to show whether or not she consented to the man’s act. The
exception to this is when the woman’s consent is immaterial such as in
statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation. In the crimes
of qualified seduction or consented abduction, the offended party
must be a "virgin," which is "presumed if she is unmarried and
of good reputation," or a "virtuous woman of good
reputation." The crime of simple seduction involves "the
seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over twelve
but under eighteen years of age x x x." The burden of proof
that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution, and
the accused may introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad
reputation.
In homicide cases, a pertinent
character trait 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. The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the
deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the case may be,
is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the
aggressor. When the evidence tends to prove self-defense, the known
violent character of the deceased is also admissible to show that it produced a
reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a
justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary.
In the instant case, proof of the
bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or
improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim
was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no
connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent
death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness
testimony, the claim that because of the victim’s bad character he could have
been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple
speculation.
Moreover, proof of the victim’s
bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with
treachery and premeditation.
0 Comments