GR 166479; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166479 ; February 28, 2006
RODOLFO C. VELASCO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo C. Velasco was charged with Attempted Murder for shooting Frederick Maramba on April 19, 1998, in Dagupan City. The prosecution established that while Maramba was washing his jeep, Velasco alighted from a tricycle, approached him, and fired multiple shots. One bullet hit Maramba’s left upper arm before he fled. The tricycle driver corroborated the account, identifying Velasco, who was wearing a distinctive vest. Police responding to the report pursued and apprehended Velasco, recovering a .45 caliber pistol and spent shells. Maramba positively identified Velasco as his assailant at the city jail.
Velasco interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Lingayen, Pangasinan, the previous night and was en route to Calasiao when police arrested him without cause. He denied knowing Maramba and asserted his firearm was licensed. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of Attempted Murder, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Attempted Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly the positive identification by the victim and the corroborating testimony of the tricycle driver, to be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Velasco to be at the crime scene, and it crumbled against the positive identification. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving Maramba of any chance to defend himself. The crime was correctly classified as Attempted Murder because all acts of execution were commenced, but the fatal wound was not inflicted due to the victim’s evasion, constituting a cause independent of the offender’s desistance. The penalty imposed was within the correct range.