May 29, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NOEL LEE, accused-appellant
PUNO, J.
SUMMARY: Lee was convicted for murder of his neighbor, Joseph Marquez. He assails his conviction arguing that the testimony of
victims mother was not credible and that TC erred in hastily tagging him as the assailant based merely on the biased declaration of the
mother without considering the shady character of the victim against whom others might have an axe to grind. He claims that TC erred
in failing to consider the proof he presented to show the victims bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict,
particularly the letter of the victims mother to the Caloocan City Mayor surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation. SC:
Sustained his conviction and held that proof of the bad moral character of the victim, in this case, is irrelevant to determine the
probability or improbability of his killing. There was no connection bet. the deceaseds drug addiction and thievery with his violent death.
Also, Lee was charged with murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation; hence proof of the victims bad character is
not necessary.
DOCTRINE:

Proof of the bad moral character of the VICTIM must be relevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing.

Proof of the victims bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation.

While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of
an offense, such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation.

The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent
danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary. This rule does not
apply to cases of murder.
FACTS: (Prosecutions Version)

Sept. 29, 1996 (9PM): Herminia Marquez (46) and her son, Joseph Marquez, (26), were in the living room of their house located
at Gen. Evangelista St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan.
o Room was lit by a fluorescent lamp and the area outside their house was also well lit
o Outside, there was an alley leading to Gen. Evangelista St which was bright and bustling with people.
o 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 TV while the wife was upstairs putting the baby to sleep.

Herminia and Joseph were facing each other. Herminia was seated on an armchair and the TV was to her left. Across her, Joseph
sat on the end most of the sofa against the wall (nakadikit) and window of their house and the TV was to his right.
o Window was transparent with 6 vertical glass panes pushing outwards, mounted on a hollow block and 3ft from the
ground
o Hollow block was higher about ft. than sofa

Herminia looked away from the game and casually glanced at her son. To her surprise, she saw a hand holding a gun coming
out of the open window behind Joseph.

She looked up and saw Noel Lee peering through the window and holding the gun aimed at Joseph.
o Herminia, when testifying, demonstrated that the victim peeped through the window.

Before she could warn him, Joseph turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, Lee fired his gun hitting Josephs
head.

Joseph slumped on the sofa. Herminia stood up but could not move as Lee fired a second shot at Joseph and 3 shots more 2 hit
the sofa and 1 hit the cement floor. (Total: 5 shots; 2 hit Joseph, 1 hit floor, 2 hit sofa)

When no more shots were fired, Herminia ran to the window and saw Lee, in a blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house
(about 150 to 200 m away).

Herminia shouted for help and with the aid of her kumpare brought Joseph to the MCU Hospital where he later died.

Police investigators arrived at the hospital and Herminia told them that her son was shot by Noel Lee.

From the hospital, Herminia went to the St. Martin Funeral Homes where Josephs body was brought.

She then proceeded to the Caloocan PNP Headquarters where she gave her sworn statement about the shooting

Post-mortem exam:
o Conjunctiva are pale, Lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. A needle puncture mark was noted at the dorsum of the right
hand.
o HEAD: 2 Gunshot wounds (1 in the frontal region.. just right of the anterior midline and 1 in the occipital region, left of the
posterior midline), both, 161 cm from heel, with an upbraded collar, .. fracturing the frontal bone and occipital bone
respective and both lacerating the brain. 2 deformed slugs were recovered embedded at the left cerebral hemisphere of
the brain and left auricular region, respectively

w/ contusion, right eyebrow. Subdural & subarachnoidal hemorrhages.

o Stomach is full of partially digested food particles and positive for alcoholic odor.
o Cause of death is intracranial hemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds. Head.
o In Sum: Deceased sustained 2 gunshot wounds1 to the right of the forehead, and the other, to the L side of the back of
the victims head. 2 slugs were recovered from the victims head.

Herminia filed a complaint for murder against Lee with the Prosecutors Office.

Prosec. Office (in a Resolution): Dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence as issued by Pros. Sison with the approval
of Caloocan City Pros. Silverio.

Herminia appealed the order of dismissal to the DOJ Sec.

DOJ Sec. Silvestre Bello: Reversed the Resolution and ordered the City Pros. of Caloocan to file an information for murder
against Noel Lee

An Information was filed against Noel Lee charging him with the murder committed through treachery and evident
premeditation.

A warrant of arrest issued against Lee on June 8, 1998. He was arrested by agents of the NBI on Oct. 16, 1998.

Lee pleaded not guilty to the charge.

TRIAL

PROSECUTION presented: (a) Herminia (b) a resident doctor at the MCU Hospital; (c) a police officer who examined the crime
scene; and (d) a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Lab. who testified to the facts presented above.
o Lee is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal cases pending against him in Caloocan City.
o He was charged with frustrated homicide in 1984 and attempted murder in 1989

DEFENSE presented 2 witnesses: (a) Orlando Bermudez, a neighbor; and (b) the accused himself.
o From 8 to 10 PM of Sept. 29, he was in his house 2 blocks away from victims house, having some drinks and singing with
the videoke with his neighbor, Bermudez, and his driver, Columba.
o In the house were his wife, children and h. help.
o 10 PM: Orlando & Nelson went home so Lee went to sleep. When he woke up, he learned that Joseph was shot to death.
o Lee had known Joseph since childhood and their houses are only 2 blocks apart.
o Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict.
o Sept 23, 96 (6 days before Lees death): Lee caught Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph
scampered away.
o As proof of the victims bad reputation, Lee presented a LETTER handwritten by his mother, Herminia, addressed
to Mayor Rey Malonzo of Caloocan, and sent through PO3 Willy Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth.

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
o As to the 2 criminal cases filed against him in 1984 and 1989, the information for attempted murder was dismissed as a
result of the victims desistance while in the frustrated homicide case, the real assailant appeared and admitted his crime

RTC: Lee is GUILTY of MURDER. Sentenced him to death.

o Appreciated the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling but without any mitigating circumstance to
offset it

On automatic review to SC
o Lee claims that TC should not have accepted Herminias testimony because it is biased, incredible and inconsistent.
o He also claims that TC erred in hastily tagging him as the assailant based merely on the biased declaration of the mother
without considering the shady character of the victim against whom others might have an axe to grind.
ISSUE # 1: Whether TC erred in not considering the victims (offended partys) shady character which raises the probability that there
was a different assailant? (NO)

Lee: Joseph had a bad reputation in their community. His drug habit led him to commit other crimes and he may have been shot by
any of the persons from whom he had stolen.

SC: Proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of his killing.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Sec. 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence: 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. xxxx

CHARACTER: 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.
o
Strictly speaking, character is not synonymous with reputation.
o
CHARACTER: nature of a person, his disposition generally, or his disposition in respect to a particular trait such as
peacefulness or truthfulness.
o
REPUTATION: community estimate of him.
o
In the US, reputation is a method of proving character.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER: includes all the elements essential to make up such a character; among these are:
o
common honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse;
o
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;
o
that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and upright conduct.

The concept of character has acquired strong moral overtones over the years. Inquiry into the nature of the person has largely
been confined to considerations w/c can be characterized as either goodness or badness. It seems destined to encompass a
broadened view of human nature

GENERAL RULE: Character or reputation of a party is legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so that evidence
relating thereto is NOT admissible.
o
REASON: If issues were so influenced by persons character, trial would have aspects of a popularity contest rather than
a factual inquiry into the merits.
o
The business of the court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man may have a righteous cause. (Yes
naman).

EXCEPTIONS: Sec. 51, Rule 130 in both criminal and civil cases.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASES (Sec. 51 (1) & (2) of Rule 130)

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER [Sec. 51 (a) (1)]: The accused may such if pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense
charged.
o
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.
o
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.

BAD MORAL CHARACTER [Sec. 51 (a) (2)]: 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.
o
WHY? 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 defendants bad
character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from refutation, would have a license to unscrupulously impose a false character upon
the tribunal

CASE AT BAR: It was the prosecution that first presented evidence of the bad moral character of Lee by citing the 2 criminal cases
pending against him. The presentation of this evidence, however, was not objected to by Lee.

PERTINENT TO THE MORAL TRAIT INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE CHARGED: 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.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESS (not relevant here)

With respect to a witness in both criminal and civil cases, his bad moral character may be proved by either party as provided
under Sec. 11, Rule 132
CHARACTER EVIDENCE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IN CRIMINAL CASES (Sec. 51 (3) of Rule 130)

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.

Usu. offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in a rape case.

US jurisdiction:...The reforms range from barring all evidence of the victims character for chastity in rape cases to merely requiring
a preliminary hearing to screen out inadmissible evidence on the issue. Their present rule lies between these extremes Reversing
the traditional preference for proof of character by reputation, it bars reputation and opinion evidence of the victims past sexual
conduct, but permits evidence of specific incidents if certain substantive and procedural conditions are met.

Philippine setting: Proof of the moral character of the offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and
HOMICIDE.

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
o GENERAL RULE: Womans character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to the mans
act.
o EXCEPTION: When the womans consent is immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or intimidation.

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.

CRIME OF SIMPLE SEDUCTION: Involves the seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation, over 12 but
under 18 y/o
o BURDEN OF PROOF: Prosecution - that the complainant is a woman of good reputation
o Accused may introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of bad reputation

HOMICIDE CASES: a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissible in 2 situations:

o (1) as evidence of the deceaseds aggression;
o (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.
o People v. Sumicad: deceased was a bully of known violent character, although himself unarmed, he attempted to take
from the accused a bolo, the only means of defense possessed by the latter. It would have been an act of suicide for the
accused to allow the bolo to pass into the hands of the victim.

CASE AT BAR: Proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of
his killing.

LEE has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. No connection bet.
the deceaseds drug addiction and thievery with his violent death.
o That because of the victims bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is
speculative.
MOREOVER, proof of the victims bad moral character is not necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and
premeditation.
People v. Soliman: the defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative character of the deceased.
o While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the
commission of an offense (Sec. 51 (a) (3), Rule 130), such is NOT NECESSARY in the crime of murder where the
killing is committed through TREACHERY or PREMEDITATION.
o The proof of such character may only be allowed in HOMICIDE cases to show that it has produced a reasonable belief of
imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary
(Moran). This rule does not apply to cases of MURDER.
CASE AT BAR: Lee is charged with murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation.
Treachery Present: Joseph was sitting in his living room when Lee peeped through the window and, without any warning, shot
him twice in the head. No opportunity for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. The suddenness of the attack ensured his death
without risk to Lee.
The presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery negates the necessity of proving the victims bad character to establish
the probability or improbability of the offense charged and, at the same time, qualifies the killing of Joseph Marquez to murder
o

ISSUE # 2: Whether Herminias testimony should not have been believed because it is biased, incredible and inconsistent? (NO)

Herminias testimony on direct examination is positive, clear and straightforward. (see orig., placed the addtl info in facts)

She was subjected by defense counsel to rigorous cross and re-cross examinations and yet she stuck to her testimony given in the
direct examination.

She readily gave specific details of the crime scene.

She explained that she was unable to warn Joseph bec. she was shocked by the sight of Lee aiming a gun at her son.

A sons death in his mothers house and in her presence is a painful and agonizing experience that is not easy for a mother to
forget, even with the passing of time.

Herminias testimony shows that she was living with a conscience that haunted and blamed her own self for failing to protect her
son or, at least, save him from death.
o Herminia was emotionally upset at the time while testifying and stated di ko man lang naipagtanggol ang anak ko
(huhuhu)

Lee: Inconsistent testimony. She said butas na bintana in her sworn statement before the police but testified on crossexamination that it was a bukas na bintana a serious procedural anomaly that assaulted his substantial right. (bwahaha)
o Also, in the affidavit, she stated that she just saw a hand holding a gun. She did not see the person holding the gun, let
alone who fired it

SC: Herminia corrected her affidavit by saying in open court on cross-examination that she saw the hand and the gun coming out
of the open window, not from a hole in the window.
o
Mali po ang letra, Bukas hindi butas She also presented during her direct testimony, a photograph of her living room just
the way it looked from her side on the night of the shooting

Affidavits are generally considered inferior to open court declarations because affidavits are taken ex-parte and are almost always
incomplete and inaccurate

Oftentimes, they are executed when the affiants mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of
narrating in full the incident that transpired.

They are usually not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who suggests words to the affiant, or worse, uses his own
language in taking the affiants statements.

No motive for Herminia to point at Lee, particularly bec. she acted as agent for him before. It was Lee who had strong motive to
harm Joseph bec. of latters attempt to steal his stereo.

Medico-legal report: Judging from the location and number of wounds sustained, Dr. Cosidon theorized that the assailant could not
be more than 2 feet away from the victim
OTHER ISSUE: No Penalty of death because aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation not appreciated; neither a.
circumstance of dwelling since Information only alleged treachery and evident premeditation
DISPOSITION: RTC decision Affirmed insofar as Lee is found guilty of murder for the death of Joseph Marquez. The death sentence
imposed by the TC is reduced to reclusion perpetua,