SISON VS. PEOPLE
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by
G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995
FACTS:
Several informations were filed in court against eleven persons identified
as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo.
The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court. All of
the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly.
The prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including two eyewitnesses,
Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, and the police officers who were at
the Luneta at the time of the incident. In support of their testimonies, the
prosecution likewise presented documentary evidence consisting of
newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken during
the mauling.
The trial court rendered a decision finding Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel
Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the
crime of murder qualified by treachery.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals on December 28, 1992, modified the
decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the
penalty of the rest of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion
perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of murder qualified by
abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide
because the information against him did not allege the said qualifying
circumstance.
Hence, this petition.
One of the issues raised by the petitioner is that the Ca erred in admitting
the photographs which were not properly identified.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in admitting the photographs which were not
proprly identified.
RULING:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence,
must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as
to the circumstances under which they were produced.The value of this kind
of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the
original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the
scene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only
witness who can identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or
by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its accuracy.
the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its
exactness and accuracy.
This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part
of its evidence, appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo Lazaro, Jr.
objected to their admissibility for lack of proper identification. However,
when the accused presented their evidence, Atty. Winlove Dumayas,
counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used the photographs
to prove that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could
not have participated in the mauling of the victim.
The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is
anchored on the fact that the person who took the same was not presented to
identify them. We rule that the use of these photographs by some of the
accused to show their alleged non-participation in the crime is an admission
of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the photographs are faithful
representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when appellants
Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves
therein and gave reasons for their presence thereat.
An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies reveal
that only three of the appellants, namely, Richard de los Santos, Nilo
Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily seen in various belligerent poses
lunging or hovering behind or over the victim. Appellant Romeo Sison
appears only once and he, although afflicted with hernia is shown merely
running after the
victim. Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the pictures.
The absence of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate
them. The photographs did not capture the entire sequence of the killing of
Salcedo but only segments thereof. While the pictures did not record Sison
and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were unequivocally identified by
Sumilang and Banculo.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
JESUS PAYCANA, JR., appellant.
Facts:
The prosecution presented Tito Balandra (Tito), the father of the victim;
Angelina Paycana (Angelina), appellant’s eldest daughter who personally
witnessed the whole gruesome incident; Barangay Tanod Juan Parañal, Jr.;
Dr. Stephen Beltran, who conducted the autopsy; and Santiago Magistrado,
Jr., the embalmer who removed the fetus from the deceased’s body.
The evidence for the prosecution established that on 26 November 2002, at
around 6:30 in the morning, appellant, who worked as a butcher, came
home from the slaughter house carrying his tools of trade, a knife, a bolo,
and a sharpener. His wife was preparing their children for school and was
waiting for him to come home from his work. For reasons known to him
alone, appellant stabbed his wife 14 times. Tito, whose house is at back of
appellant’s house, heard his daughter shouting for help. When he arrived, he
saw his daughter lying prostrate near the door and her feet were trembling.
But seeing appellant, who was armed, he stepped back. Angelina told Tito
by the window that appellant had held her mother’s neck and stabbed her.
Appellant claimed that he wrested the weapon from Lilybeth after she
stabbed him first. According to him, they had an altercation on the evening
of 25 November 2002 because he saw a man coming out from the side of
their house and when he confronted his wife about the man, she did not
answer. On the following morning, he told her that they should live
separately. As appellant got his things and was on his way out of the door,
Lilybeth stabbed him. But he succeeded in wresting the knife from Lilybeth.
And he stabbed her. He added that he was not aware of the number of times
he stabbed his wife because he was then dizzy and lots of blood was coming
out of his wound.
Issue:
WON the accused is guilty of parricide and unintentional abortion.
Ruling:
Bearing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, the crime of parricide is
committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in
parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of
parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused
and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. The testimony of the
accused of being married to the victim, in itself, may also be taken as an
admission against penal interest.
As distinguished from infanticide, the elements of unintentional abortion are
as follows: (1) that there is a pregnant woman; (2) that violence is used
upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion; (3) that the
violence is intentionally exerted; and (4) that as a result of the violence the
fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. In
the crime of infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be
viable, that is, capable of independent existence. However, even if the child
who was expelled prematurely and deliberately were alive at birth, the
offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an intrauterine life of 6
months is not viable. In the present case, the unborn fetus was also killed
when the appellant stabbed Lilybeth several times.
The case before us is governed by the first clause of Article 48 because by a
single act, that of stabbing his wife, appellant committed the grave felony of
parricide as well as the less grave felony of unintentional abortion. A
complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies.