Post

People of the Philippines vs. Ybo Lastimosa

Posted
By Anonymous
8 min read
People of the Philippines vs. Ybo Lastimosa

Case Title and Citation

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. YBO LASTIMOSA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 265758, February 03, 2025
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Gesmundo, C.J.

Facts

  • On November 17, 2012 at about 4:30 PM in Cansojong, Talisay City, Cebu, Ildefonso Vega, Jr. was shot and later died of gunshot wounds to the head and neck.
  • Information filed February 12, 2013 charged Ybo Lastimosa with Murder, alleging use of a firearm, deliberate intent, intent to kill, treachery, and evident premeditation.
  • Arraignment: December 12, 2013 — accused pleaded not guilty.
  • Prosecution witnesses:
    • Dureza Vega (wife): testified she found her husband already dead at Talisay District Hospital and that he was shot.
    • Elmer Ca�eda: eyewitness who testified he was 2–3 meters away, saw Lastimosa shoot Ildefonso three times, and identified Lastimosa in court.
    • Vicente Cortes: eyewitness who testified he was about six meters away and saw Lastimosa shoot Ildefonso.
  • Defense evidence:
    • Accused (Lastimosa) and live-in partner (referred to as Maria Amie Paquit / Mary Ann Bargamento) testified to denial and an alibi that accused was at his rented residence in Barangay San Roque, Cebu City at the relevant time.
  • Documentary evidence and procedural history:
    • A photocopy of the death certificate of Ildefonso was presented and temporarily marked as Exhibit “B” during trial (August 28, 2014); original was not produced in court then.
    • RTC, Branch 12, Cebu City, rendered Judgment June 1, 2018 convicting accused of Homicide and imposing imprisonment and damages.
    • Court of Appeals, Twentieth Division, Cebu City, Decision dated February 11, 2022 set aside RTC judgment, found accused guilty of Murder, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and increased damages.
    • Accused elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Did the court a quo grievously err in convicting the accused-appellant despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? (Yes/No)
  2. Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder despite the alleged failure to prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery? (Yes/No)
  3. Was the photocopy (duplicate) of the death certificate admissible and of probative value despite the absence of the original? (Yes/No)

Ruling

  1. Yes - The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction for Murder as found by the Court of Appeals.
  2. Yes - The Court found that treachery attended the killing and may be appreciated against the accused; evident premeditation was not proven.
  3. Yes - The photocopy of the death certificate is admissible as a duplicate under Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4 of the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (in conjunction with Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence); no genuine question of authenticity or inequity was shown.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Standard of review and scope:
    • An appeal in criminal cases permits full review of the record; appellate courts may correct errors, increase penalties, and examine matters beyond assigned errors. (Ramos v. People cited.)
  • Corpus delicti and fact of death:
    • The testimony of Dureza Vega that she found her husband dead at the hospital, corroborated by the death certificate stating death on November 17, 2012 from gunshot wounds to head and neck, established the fact of death (element of Article 248, Revised Penal Code).
    • Autopsy report or medico-legal testimony is not an essential prerequisite to establish death for murder prosecution.
  • Identity of the perpetrator and credibility of eyewitnesses:
    • Positive eyewitness identification by Ca�eda (2–3 meters away) and Cortes (about 6 meters away), corroborated by consistent accounts and physical circumstances (victim fell, motorcycle details, helmet dropped) established that the accused shot the victim.
    • Trial court credibility determinations are accorded respect absent clear reasons to overturn; defense of denial and alibi failed because accused did not prove physical impossibility of being at the scene.
  • Treachery:
    • Treachery requires (1) victim not in a position to defend, and (2) offender consciously adopted means to ensure execution without risk to himself. The shooting of the victim’s head/neck, three shots, and circumstances showing no preceding altercation satisfied both elements; therefore treachery is present.
  • Evident premeditation:
    • Not proven: prosecution did not establish time of determination, acts showing clinging to determination, nor sufficient lapse for cool reflection; hence evident premeditation cannot be appreciated.
  • Admissibility of duplicates (Best Evidence / Original Document Rule):
    • The 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (Rule 130, Sections 3 and 4) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence (Rule 4, Sections 1 and 2) treat a “duplicate” (including photocopies) as admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) a genuine question is raised about authenticity or (2) its admission would be unjust or inequitable.
    • The Court rejected the dichotomy in MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. that limited duplicate equivalence to electronic documents, reasoning that the 2019 amendments allow duplicates of paper-based originals to be treated as originals under the stated exceptions.
    • Retroactive application: procedural rules (such as the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence) may be applied to pending actions when doing so does not impair vested substantive rights or work injustice; the admission of the photocopy did not produce such injustice and the duplicate corroborated live testimony.
    • Admissibility is distinct from probative value: Exhibit “B” (photocopy) was admissible and served to corroborate the testimony of the victim’s wife; the weight accorded to it is a matter for judicial evaluation.
  • Waiver of defective pleading of qualifying circumstances:
    • Under People v. Solar (858 Phil. 884), when an Information alleges qualifying circumstances in general terms, the accused must challenge by motion to quash or bill of particulars before trial; failure to do so constitutes waiver. Accused did not challenge the general averments and thus waived right to contest the defect, permitting appraisal of treachery and premeditation on the merits.
  • Penalty and damages:
    • Murder under Article 248 (as charged) with proven treachery carries reclusion perpetua (lesser of reclusion perpetua to death when treachery proved); neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present, so reclusion perpetua imposed.
    • Civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages awarded in accordance with People v. Jugueta and temperate damages affirmed; interest at 6% per annum from finality ordered.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Under Rule 130 (2019 Revised Rules on Evidence) and Rule 4 (Rules on Electronic Evidence), a duplicate (including a photocopy) is admissible as an original unless authenticity is genuinely questioned or its admission would be unjust or inequitable.
  • Admissibility of evidence is distinct from probative value; admissible duplicates may be given weight by the court in conjunction with other evidence.
  • An Information alleging qualifying circumstances in general terms must be specifically challenged by motion to quash or bill of particulars; failure to do so is a waiver (People v. Solar).
  • Treachery consists of: (1) victim not in a position to defend, and (2) offender consciously adopted means to ensure execution; proof may be inferred from wound location and manner of attack.
  • Procedural rules may be applied retroactively to pending cases when such application neither impairs vested rights nor works injustice.

Disposition

  • The February 11, 2022 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03604 is AFFIRMED.
  • Accused-appellant Ybo Lastimosa is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua.
  • Accused is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Ildefonso Vega, Jr.:
    1. PHP 75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
    2. PHP 75,000.00 as moral damages;
    3. PHP 75,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
    4. PHP 50,000.00 as temperate damages.
  • All monetary awards shall earn interest at 6% per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur.
  • No dissenting opinion noted in the decision.

Significance / Notes

  • Confirms that duplicates (including photocopies of paper-based documents) are admissible as originals under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence unless authenticity is genuinely disputed or admission would be unjust — effectively overruling the prior limited application in MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. that excluded paper-based duplicates from equivalent treatment.
  • Reinforces distinction between admissibility and probative weight; duplicates may corroborate testimonial evidence but weight remains a matter for the trier of fact.
  • Affirms the doctrine in People v. Solar that failure to challenge generalized allegations of qualifying circumstances in the Information constitutes waiver, allowing appellate courts to appreciate such circumstances if proven at trial.
  • Reaffirms standards for treachery and evident premeditation: treachery may be inferred from manner and location of wounds and method of attack; evident premeditation requires proof of deliberation and lapse for calm reflection and was not established here.
  • Practical implication for practitioners: prosecutors should plead ultimate facts supporting qualifying circumstances or attach the resolution of probable cause; defense counsel must timely file motions to quash or bills of particulars to preserve objections.
  • Sentencing note: conviction for murder with treachery yields reclusion perpetua; under RA 9346 persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under Act No. 4103.
Criminal Law Evidence Remedial Law
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.