Case Digest: People of The Philippines Vs Noel Lee (Character Evidence)

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES VS NOEL LEE

(CHARACTER EVIDENCE)
March 26, 2015
[G.R. No. 139070. May 29, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff–appellee, vs. NOEL LEE, accused–appellant.
FACTS:
Joseph Marquez and his mother, Herminia, were in the living room watching television
when suddenly, Noel Lee shot Joseph twice through their living room window. This was all
witnessed by Herminia who eventually dragged her son’s body and shouted for help.
Joseph was brought to the hospital but expired thereat.
Noel Lee is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has several criminal cases
pending against him in Caloocan City. He was charged with frustrated homicide in 1984
and attempted murder in 1989. He has known Joseph since childhood and their houses are
only two blocks apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their neighborhood as a thief and
drug addict. Six days before his death, on September 23, 1996, accused-appellant caught
Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph scampered away. As proof of the
victim’s bad reputation, Noel presented a letter handwritten by his mother, Herminia,
addressed to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City, and sent through PO3 Willy
Tuazon and his wife, Baby Ruth. In the letter, 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.
The accused-appellant likewise explained the two criminal cases filed against him in 1984
and 1989. The information for attempted murder was dismissed as a result of the victim’s
desistance while in the frustrated homicide case, the real assailant appeared and admitted
his crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not the pieces of evidence Noel Lee presented are admissible in
evidence.
RULING:
Character evidence is governed by Section 51, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, viz:
“Section 51. 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.
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to
determine the probability or improbability of his killing. Accused-appellant has not
alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There
is no connection between the deceased’s drug addiction and thievery with his violent death
in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the positive eyewitness testimony, the claim
that because of the victim’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. In People v. Solimana murder case, the
defense tried to prove the violent, quarrelsome or provocative character of the deceased.
Upon objection of the prosecution, the trial court disallowed the same. The Supreme Court
held:
“x x x 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 (Section 15, Rule
123), 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 (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126). This rule does not apply to cases of murder.”
In the case at bar, accused-appellant is charged with murder committed through treachery
and evident premeditation. The evidence shows that there was treachery. Joseph was
sitting in his living room watching television when accused-appellant peeped through the
window and, without any warning, shot him twice in the head. There was no opportunity at
all for the victim to defend himself or retaliate against his attacker. The suddenness and
unexpectedness of the attack ensured his death without risk to the assailant. Following the
ruling in People v. Soliman, where the killing of the victim was attended by treachery,
proof of the victim’s bad character is not necessary. 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.
GUILTY.

Case Digest: People of The Philippines Vs Noel Lee (Character Evidence)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest: People of The Philippines Vs Noel Lee (Character Evidence)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest: People of The Philippines Vs Noel Lee (Character Evidence)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES VS NOEL LEE

[G.R. No. 139070. May 29, 2002]

“x x x While good or bad moral character may be availed of as an aid to determine

You might also like