2 People - v. - Pansensoy20231214 11 Jmr23y
2 People - v. - Pansensoy20231214 11 Jmr23y
DECISION
CARPIO, J : p
The Case
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 13,
1999 in Criminal Case No. 94-11527 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo
City, Branch 73, convicting appellant Roberto Pansensoy ("appellant" for
brevity) of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The trial court also ordered appellant to pay the heirs of
the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P40,000.00 as actual damages and
P20,000.00 as moral damages.
The Charge
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Rolando L. Gonzales filed an Information 2
charging appellant with the crime of murder, committed as follows:
"That on or about the 8th day of May, 1994, in the Municipality of
Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a handgun,
with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident
premeditation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot one Hilario Reyes y Inovero, hitting him on his
forehead, thereby inflicting upon him a mortal gunshot wound, which
directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
SO ORDERED." 10
From Analie's testimony, it is all too apparent that the first requisite of
self-defense is absent. The unlawful aggression did not come from the victim
but from appellant himself. The aggression not having come from the victim,
appellant's claim of self-defense cannot prosper. The trial court relied on
Analie's testimony to convict appellant and we find that her testimony is
sufficient to support appellant's conviction.
As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analie's testimony would have been
disregarded had appellant timely objected to her competency to testify
under the marital disqualification rule. Under this rule, neither the husband
nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
direct descendants or ascendants. 19 However, objections to the competency
of a husband and wife to testify in a criminal prosecution against the other
may be waived as in the case of other witnesses generally. 20 The objection
to the competency of the spouse must be made when he or she is first
offered as a witness. 21 In this case, the incompetency was waived by
appellant's failure to make a timely objection to the admission of Analie's
testimony.
We note that Rogelio was presented to corroborate Analie's testimony,
but he gave a rather confusing account of what he allegedly saw or heard on
the night of the shooting. During his direct examination, he claimed that he
heard a gunshot, but on cross-examination he claimed that he opened the
door of his house and actually saw appellant shoot Hilario. In any event, it is
well-settled that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible and positive,
is sufficient to convict an accused. 22 On the other hand, a plea of self-
defense cannot be justifiably appreciated, if it is not only uncorroborated by
independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself
23 as in the instant case.
x 88 x P115,200
———
3
x 29.33 x P115,200
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
Footnotes
3. Ibid., p. 17.
4. TSN, January 31, 1996, pp. 3-6.
21. Ibid.
22. People vs. Ferras, 289 SCRA 94 (1998).
23. People vs. De la Cruz, 291 SCRA 164 (1998).
24. People vs. Macuha, 310 SCRA 14 (1999).
25. People vs. Javier, 311 SCRA 576 (1999).
26. People vs. Leonor, 305 SCRA 285 (1999).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
27. Ibid.
28. People vs. Germina , 290 SCRA 146 (1998).
29. Ibid.
30. People vs. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570 (1977).
31. Luis B. Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE CRIMINAL LAW, 378 (1981).
32. People vs. Caisip, 290 SCRA 451 (1998).
33. 63 Phil. 601 (1936).
34. ART. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
35. People vs. Peña, 291 SCRA 606 (1998); People vs. Galapin & Beira, Jr., 293
SCRA 474 (1998); People vs. Pepito et al., 310 SCRA 128 (1999).
36. People vs. Adoc , 330 SCRA 626 (2000); People vs. Solis, 291 SCRA 529
(1998).