194. People v.

Lee
GR No. 139070 | 29 May 2002 | Puno, J.
Aggy | Topic: ​Character Evidence
Case Summary: ​Joseph Marquez was shot in his living room while he and his mother, Herminia were watching TV.
The living room was brightly lit so Herminia was able to clearly see Lee reach out his hand armed with a gun through
the open window and shoot Joseph twice in the head. When Herminia rushed towards her son, Lee escaped. An
information was then filed against Lee for the crime of murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation.
Lee interposed an alibi claiming that at the time of the incident he was having a drinking session with a neighbor in his
house. He admitted that he knew Joseph since childhood since they lived only 2 blocks away from each other. He also
claimed that Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and drug addict, and that he once caught
Joseph trying to steal his car stereo. As proof of Joseph’s bad reputation, Lee presented a handwritten letter of
Herminia, where she was surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was hooked on shabu and
was a thief. RTC convicted Lee and sentenced him to death. Lee appealed and contended that Joseph's bad reputation
in their community shows a possibility that he may have been shot by any of the persons from whom he had stolen.

SC held that generally, the character or reputation of a party is legally irrelevant in determining a controversy. Hence,
evidence relating thereto is inadmissible. Otherwise, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest
rather than a factual inquiry into the merits of the case. However, Sec. 51 (now 54), Rule 130 provides for the
exceptions. One of which refers to the ​admissibility of the character evidence of the OFFENDED PARTY. It may be
proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
It is most commonly offered to support a claim of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in a
rape case. ​In homicide cases, in particular, the victim’s pertinent character trait is admissible in 2 situations: (1)
evidence of the deceased’s aggression; and (2) evidence of the accused’s state of mind. ​The trouble-seeking
character of the deceased or his calmness or peaceful nature 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. ​ITCAB, 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. There is no connection between
Joseph’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in the hands of Lee. MOREOVER, SC noted that proof of
the victim’s bad moral character is NOT necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and premeditation.
Here, Lee is charged with murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation. Evidence shows that there
was treachery since Joseph was sitting in his living room watching TV when Lee peeped through the window and
without any warning, shot him twice in the head. There was no opportunity for Joseph to defend himself or retaliate. The
suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack ensured his death without risk to Lee. The presence of this aggravating
circumstance negates the necessity of proving the victim's 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.

Facts:
1. At 9PM on Sept. 29, 1996, Herminia Marquez and her son, Joseph (victim) were watching TV in the
living room of their house which was brightly lit by a circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. Outside
their house was an alley, leading to the General Evangelista St, which was also brightly lit and bustling
with people and activity. [There were women sewing outside and a store was open catering to
customers]
a. Herminia was sitting on an armchair and the TV was to her left. Across her, Joseph sat on a
sofa against the wall and window of the house and the TV was to his right.
b. Herminia glanced at her son briefly when she saw a hand holding a gun coming out of the open
window behind Joseph. She saw accused Noel Lee peering through the window.
c. Before she could warn Joseph, Lee fired his gun hitting Joseph’s head. The latter then slumped
on the sofa. Lee fired a second shot at Joseph, and 3 more shots––2 hit the sofa, and 1 hit the
cement.
d. Herminia ran to the window and saw Lee flee towards the direction of his house.
2. Herminia brought Joseph to the MCU Hospital where he later died.
 a. Police investigators arrived at the hospital and Herminia told them that it was Lee who shot her
son. She went to the Police Station and gave her sworn statement
b. In her affidavit, it was written that she saw the hand coming from the hole on their window
[​Butas na bintana​]. During trial, however, she mentioned that the hand came from the open
window [​Bukas na bintana​] [​SC gave more credence to the testimony during trial since Herminia
sufficiently explained the minor inconsistency to have been due to the wrong letter in the
affidavit.​]
c. Dr. Cosiden, a medico-legal officer of the PNP, conducted a post-mortem examination on
Joseph. She found 2 gunshot wounds and recovered 2 deformed slugs from the body.
3. Holding that there was treachery and evident premeditation, an Information was filed against Lee for
murder.
4. Lee is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and had several criminal cases pending against him in
Caloocan city. He was previously charged of frustrated homicide in 1984, and of attempted murder in
1989.
a. For his defense, Lee presented 2 witnesses: (1) Orlando Bermudez, a neighbor, and (2) himself.
b. He denied killing Joseph and interposed an alibi that at the time of the incident, he was in his
house having drinks with Bermudez and his driver, Nelson Columba. The two left the house at
10PM. The next day, he woke up at 5:30AM and learned of Joseph’s killing. He was surprised to
discover that he was tagged as the killer.
c. He admitted that he and Joseph knew each other since childhood since their houses are only 2
blocks apart. ​He claimed that Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief
and drug addict.
i. 6 days before Joseph’s death, ​Lee caught Joseph inside Lee’s car trying to steal his car
stereo.​ Joseph scampered away upon being caught.
ii. As proof of Joseph’s bad reputation, Lee presented a handwritten letter of
Herminia​, addressed to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City. In the letter,
Herminia was ​surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation because he was
hooked on shabu and was a thief. Herminia was scared that eventually Joseph might
not just steal but also kill her and everyone in their household because of his drug habit.
[​Herminia admitted that she wrote the letter but denied anything about Joseph’s thievery​]
d. Lee also explained that the case against him for attempted murder had been dismissed as a
result of the victim’s desistance. As to the case for frustrated homicide, the real assaillant
appeared and confessed.
5. RTC convicted Lee and sentenced him to death.
6. Lee appealed and argued that RTC erred in tagging him as the assailant based merely on the biased
declaration of Herminia without considering the shady character of Joseph against whom others might
have an axe to grind.

Issue/s and Holding:

W/N character evidence of the offended party is admissible in this case?​ – NO.
Lee: ​Joseph's bad reputation in their community shows a possibility that he may have been shot by any of the
persons from whom he had stolen.
Rule 130, Section 51​ [​Now 54​]. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions​ — ​xxx
(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. ​Xxx ​[​Essentially the same as
the current rules, except that now (1) and (2) are lumped together​]
● Character is defined as the 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.
○ Good Moral Character – includes all elements essential to make up such character [common
honesty and veracity, especially in all professional intercourse] It is 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. It is that status which attaches to a man of good behavior and
upright conduct.
● GENERAL RULE: Character or reputation of a party is legally irrelevant in determining a controversy.
Hence, evidence relating thereto is inadmissible.
○ Otherwise, the trial would be apt to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual
inquiry into the merits of the case.
○ The business of the court is to try the case, and NOT the man; and a very bad man may have a
righteous cause.
● EXCEPTIONS: ​Those provided under ​Sec. 51 [Now 54], Rule 130.
(1) Subparagraph 1 ​– ​Accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged. When the accused presents such proof, 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.
● Based on the theory that a person of good character and high reputation is NOT likely to
have committed the act charged against him.
(2) Subparagraph 2 ​– The prosecution may not prove the accused’s bad moral character except
only in rebuttal and when such is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
Hence, once the defendant raises the issue of his good character, the prosecution may, in
rebuttal, offer evidence of the defendant’s bad character.
● This intends 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.
● Offering 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.
➔ Subparagraphs (1) and (2) refer to the character of the ACCUSED. Moreover, it refers to
evidence that is “​pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.​” ​HENCE​, ​the
character evidence must be relevant AND germane to the kind of act charged.
➔ Examples: ​rape cases – character of chastity; ​assault – character for peacefulness or violence;
embezzlement​ – character for honesty and integrity

(3) Subparagraph 3 – It refers to the character evidence of the ​OFFENDED PARTY​. It may be
proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
● It is most commonly offered to support a claim of ​self-defense in an assault or homicide
case or a claim of ​consent in a rape case​.
● Rape Cases – woman’s character as to her chastity is admissible to show W/N she
consented to the man’s act [​exception to this is in cases of statutory rape where
consent is immaterial​]
○ In qualified seduction or consent abduction, offended party must be a virgin,
which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation, or a virtuous
woman of good reputation.
○ Burden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the
prosecution and accused may introduce evidence that the complainant was a
woman of bad reputation.
 ● Homicide – victim’s pertinent character trait is admissible in 2 situations: (1) ​evidence of
the deceased’s aggression​; and (2) ​evidence of the accused’s state of mind​.
○ The trouble-seeking character of the deceased or his calmness or peaceful
nature 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.
● ITCAB, ​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.
○ There is no connection between Joseph’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death in
the hands of Lee.
○ In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of Joseph’s bad character
he could have been killed by any one of those from whom he had stolen, is pure and simple
speculation.
● MOREOVER​, ​proof of the victim’s bad moral character is NOT necessary in cases of murder
committed with treachery and premeditation.
○ People v. Soliman:​ ​Good or bad moral character os the offended party is not necessary in the
crime of murder whee the killing is committed through treachery or premeditation. It may only be
allowed in homicide cases to show that it had produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger
in the mind of the accused and justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was
necessary.
○ ITCAB​, Lee is charged with murder committed through treachery and evident premeditation.
Evidence shows that there was treachery since Joseph was sitting in his living room watching
TV when Lee peeped through the window and without any warning, shot him twice in the head.
■ There was no opportunity for Joseph to defend himself or retaliate. The suddenness and
unexpectedness of the attack ensured his death without risk to Lee.
■ The presence of this aggravating circumstance negates the necessity of proving the
victim's 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.

Ruling:​ RTC is ​AFFIRMED.​ Death sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

OTHERS
● As to the credibility of Herminia​, SC held that Herminia’s testimony is positive, clear, and
straightforward. She did not waver nor did she waffle in recounting her son’s death. She readily gave
specific details of the crime scene because the crime happened right in her own living room.
○ The inconsistency between her affidavit and her testimony was satisfactorily explained by
Herminia on cross-examination. She even presented a photograph of her living room.
○ Between Herminia’s testimony in open court and her sworn statement, any inconsistency
therein does not necessarily discredit the witness. Affidavits are generally considered inferior to
open court declarations because the former are taken ex-parte and are almost always
incomplete and inaccurate.
○ Moreover, Herminia’s account finds support in the medico-legal report which found that the
victim sustained 2 gunshot wounds.

● As to the appreciation of premeditation and dwelling​, SC held that they cannot be appreciated.
○ There is absence of direct evidence showing that Lee deliberately planned and prepared the
killing of Joseph.
○ Dwelling cannot also be appreciated as only treachery and evident premeditation were alleged
in the information.