ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 107660. January 2, 1995 : RAMON C. LOZON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 : HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 : LEOUEL SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 : GEORGE I. RIVERA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 : ROLANDO B. ANGELES vs. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 : LESLIE W. ESPINO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 : EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 : ROLITO T. GO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 : FEM'S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. vs. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 : MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. vs. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 : ALFREDO B. FELIX vs. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 : TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO vs. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 : CITIBANK, N.A. vs. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 : AGRIPINO S. BELEN vs. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 : ETERIA T. TAN vs. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 : ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 : SALLY D. BONGALONTA vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 : MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 : POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 : COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 : REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 : JAIME C. DACANAY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 : MANUEL M. ALLEJE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 : CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 : ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 : SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO vs. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 : JACINTO MAPPALA vs. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 : RAUL H. SESBRENO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 : NILO MERCADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 : ALFREDO S. LIM vs. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 : RAMON ABAD vs. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 : DJUMANTAN vs. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 : JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107660 January 2, 1995 - RAMON C. LOZON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101545 January 3, 1995 - HERMENEGILDO M. MAGSUCI v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 - LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115147 January 4, 1995 - GEORGE I. RIVERA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 - ROLANDO B. ANGELES v. DIRECTOR OF NEW BILIBID PRISON

  • G.R. Nos. 109642-43 January 5, 1995 - LESLIE W. ESPINO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108172-73 January 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO B. LUCAS

  • G.R. Nos. 59550 & 60636 January 11, 1995 - EDILBERTO NOEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106087 January 11, 1995 - ROLITO T. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117442-43 January 11, 1995 - FEM’S ELEGANCE LODGING HOUSE, ET AL. v. LEON P. MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 98332 January 16, 1995 - MINERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHIL. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91283 January 17, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109704 January 17, 1995 - ALFREDO B. FELIX v. BRIGIDA BUENASEDA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1088 January 18, 1995 - TERESITA ARMI R. GUILLERMO v. JOSE C. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104497 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105007 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO CORPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111222 January 18, 1995 - CITIBANK, N.A. v. JOSE C. GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. 111288 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE NUESTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112529 January 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO CURA , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91492 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTINO GAMIAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103800 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO CHING

  • G.R. No. 113517 January 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORESTAN D. NITCHA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-920 January 20, 1995 - AGRIPINO S. BELEN v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995 - ETERIA T. TAN v. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • Adm. Case No. 1647 January 20, 1995 - ELENA VDA. DE ECO v. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

  • CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995 - SALLY D. BONGALONTA v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86305-06 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DAQUIPIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96943-45 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX ABITONA

  • G.R. No. 101229 January 20, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REO DALIMPAPAS PAJARES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104576 January 20, 1995 - MARIANO L. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106843 January 20, 1995 - POCKETBELL PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108358 January 20, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96073 January 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96652 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

  • G.R. No. 101302 January 25, 1995 - JAIME C. DACANAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107152 January 25, 1995 - MANUEL M. ALLEJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109113 January 25, 1995 - CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE MWSS v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109616 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINA P. MACARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110290 January 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME "JIMMY" AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111238 January 25, 1995 - ADELFA PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995 - SPS JOSE B. TIONGCO AND LETICIA M. TIONGCO v. SEVERIANO C. AGUILA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1208 January 26, 1995 - JACINTO MAPPALA v. CRISPULO A. NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 84096 January 26, 1995 - RAUL H. SESBRENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108592 January 26, 1995 - NILO MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110107 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES C. LORENZO

  • G.R. No. 111805 January 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO R. CAJAMBAB

  • G.R. No. 115044 January 27, 1995 - ALFREDO S. LIM v. FELIPE G. PACQUING

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-813 January 30, 1995 - RAMON ABAD v. ANTONIO BELEN

  • G.R. No. L-56290 January 30, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995 - DJUMANTAN v. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111290 January 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REX TABAO

  • G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS

  • G.R. No. 113458 January 31, 1995 - JOSE MARCELO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 96652   January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA

     

    FIRST DIVISION


    [G.R. No. 96652. January 25, 1995.]


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NESTOR CASCALLA Y GUDOY, Defendant-Appellant.


    D E C I S I O N


    QUIASON, J.:


    This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, in Criminal Case No. 2475, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm.cralaw

    I

    In an information dated January 6, 1987, Nestor Cascalla y Gudoy was charged with murder the use of an unlicensed firearm committed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "That on or about the 10th day of December, 1986, at 10:00 o'clock (sic) in the evening, more or less, in the Barangay of Batino, Municipality of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Nestor Cascalla, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot several times with the use of an unlicensed firearm, a .22 Caliber revolver with S.N. 59296, one Mario Cleofe while the latter was unaware, unarmed and defenseless, thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds causing his instantaneous death.cralaw

    That in the commission of the crime of murder with the use of unlicensed firearm the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the aggravating circumstance of nighttime were present.cralaw

    Contrary to Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code" (Rollo, p. 8).cralaw

    Upon arraignment, appellant interposed a plea of not guilty. After trial, the court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which read as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused NESTOR CASCALLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs (Rollo, p. 21).cralaw

    II

    The findings of fact of the trial court are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    On December 10, 1986, at about 9:30 P.M., Igmedio Magtibay was tending his store at Batino, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, when Mario Cleofe came for a chat. Shortly thereafter, Wilfredo Duenas joined them. Mario and Duenas were old enemies. Mario asked Duenas, "Sino ka ga?" Duenas retorted, "Huag mo akong sisinu-sinuhin at isang bala ka lang." Duenas then drew his gun and aimed it at Mario. Magtibay pacified the two by saying, "Huwag naman, wala namang kabagay-bagay." Duenas heeded Magtibay and left.cralaw

    Magtibay assisted Mario, who was tipsy, in getting to the road. Upon reaching the road, they met Sofronio Aranas, Mario's neighbor, who offered to accompany him home. Along the way, Aranas and Mario met appellant and Duenas. Appellant suddenly fired two shots in the air and said that he was a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF). Duenas, who was two-arms length away from appellant, uttered, "Sige, Tiyo, akin ang pangatlong putok." Cowed, Aranas pleaded to appellant not to shoot them as they had not done anything to him. Appellant retorted: "Sige, lampas na." Aranas and Mario resumed walking toward the latter's house while appellant and Duenas went the other way. Later, Mario stopped to rest and sat on one side of the road, while Aranas sat at the opposite side. Suddenly, appellant and Duenas returned.cralaw

    Appellant repeated to Mario that he was a member of the CHDF and ordered him to stand up. When Mario did not obey the order, appellant fired two shots directed at him. Inspite of his bullet wounds, Mario was able to grapple with appellant for the possession of the gun, until he (Mario) collapsed to the ground. Upon seeing that Mario was shot, Aranas grabbed a piece of wood and hit appellant several times. At this point, Duenas ran away. Appellant, who was parrying the blows of Aranas, dropped his gun and also ran away. Aranas got the gun left by appellant and later turned it over to the barangay captain. Several persons arrived in response to Aranas' call for help and assisted in bringing Mario to his brother's house. From there, Mario was brought to the hospital by his wife, but he died along the way.cralaw

    The next morning, appellant was detained by the police. He admitted that it was the same gun retrieved by Aranas. He also admitted that it was the same gun he used in shooting Mario twice. However, the police failed to get a sworn statement form appellant for he was not assisted by counsel.cralaw

    On December 15, 1986, a paraffin test on the hands of appellant was conducted by a forensic chemist at the National Bureau of Investigation. The test revealed several blue specks (Exhs. "G" and "H").cralaw

    The body of Mario was autopsied by Dr. Carlos Adeva who found two bullet wounds thereon: one was located two-inches above the umbilicus and the other was an inch below it. The necropsy report gave "shock due to internal hemorrhage due to bullet wounds penetrating the abdominal organs" as the cause of death (Exh. "A-1").cralaw

    Appellant denied shooting Mario and gave the following version of the incident:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    He was a resident of Lagadlarin, Lobo, Batangas. In December 1986, he went to Batino, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro to work as a thresher-operator of Eduardo Capio in the riceland of Ernesto Magboo. While in Batino, he stayed with Magboo whose wife was related to him.cralaw

    On December 10, 1986, at around 9:00 P.M., appellant met Duenas, who told him about the incident in the store of Magtibay. Appellant advised him to go home. As Duenas was also going to Gulod, they both proceeded to that place. Along the way, the two met Rodelito Cerezo and Loreto Cleofe, the brother of Mario. After a while, Loreto Cleofe left them.cralaw

    The trio then met Mario and his two other brothers, Lope and Epa. As the Cleofe brothers were approaching, Duenas drew his gun and said, "Isang bala lang kayo ngayon." Appellant was then on the right side of Duenas. He held the hands of Duenas to prevent him from shooting Mario but as the gun was raised, it fired. Suddenly, appellant felt a blow on his back.cralaw

    Reeling from the blow, appellant turned around but he was hit by Mario on the left side of the head, thereby releasing his hold on the hand of Duenas. Mario continued hitting him and all he could do was to parry the blows with his hand. After appellant was hit on the left chin, he lost consciousness.cralaw

    Appellant regained consciousness as Cerezo was lifting him up. He noticed that the Cleofe brothers and Duenas were no longer around. Cerezo, who helped him go home to Gulod, told appellant that Duenas had shot Mario. Upon reaching the house of Edgardo Capio, appellant requested that he be brought to the hospital for treatment. At the poblacion, however, they proceeded first to the police station because the barangay captain of Gulod insisted that they should report the incident to the police.cralaw

    Appellant and his companions stayed at the police station only for about two minutes. When he was asked who inflicted his injuries, he pointed to the Cleofe brothers. The police, however, did not ask him anymore questions but instead told appellant's companions to bring him to the hospital for treatment.cralaw

    Dr. Leo Geronimo, a resident physician of the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital, attended to appellant. He found that appellant had a lacerated wound on the left parieto-occipital area and abrasions on the chest and at the back of the right scapular region. Appellant's left forearm was very tender and had limited movement. Dr. Geronimo opined that appellant's left forearm could have been hit by a blunt object.cralaw

    III

    Appellant was first represented by Alvin S. Dysangco of the Public Attorney's Office who, in the appeal brief, prayed that the decision of the trial court be modified by convicting him of the crime of homicide (Rollo, p. 48). Thereafter, appellant filed a motion for leave to file an amended brief stating that the Public Attorney's Office "omitted some important points" which he believed were vital to his defense (Rollo, p. 71). Thereafter, through Atty. Pedro T. Molo, appellant filed an amended appellants brief praying for his acquittal (Rollo, pp. 78-122). Instead of filing an appellee's brief, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation that he agreed with Atty. Molo that appellant be acquitted of the crime charged (Rollo, pp. 159-177).cralaw

    IV

    Appellant questions the finding of the trial court that he was the one who shot Mario. He claims that the prosecution's version of the incident, pointing to him as the killer, was improbable because: (1) he had no motive to kill Mario, rather it was Duenas who had an enmity with Mario; (2) he did not own any firearm, rather it was Duenas who has seen to have carried a gun; (3) he was not a member of the CHDF while the one who shot Mario boasted to be a member of the CHDF; and (4) it was not natural for someone to kill another just for failure on his part to obey an order to stand up.cralaw

    The issue of credibility is left to the discretion of the trial court, which has had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. Time and again, this court has held that it will not alter the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses, principally because they are in a better position to assess the same than the appellate court (People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA 667 [1978]).cralaw

    It is not essential to prove motive in murder cases if the evidence is clear and overwhelming so as to leave no doubt of the guilt of the appellant (People v. Tagaro, 7 SCRA 187 [1963]).cralaw

    We agree with the Public Attorney's Office that the trial court erred in applying evident premeditation and treachery as qualifying circumstances (Rollo, pp. 44-46). The prosecution evidence does not show when appellant mediated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. Neither is there any showing as to the time that had elapsed before his plan was carried out.cralaw

    Likewise, treachery was not proven by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, the prosecution evidence shows that appellant even gave Mario a warning by firing two shots in the air. A few minutes before the fatal shooting, Mario had an encounter with Duenas, the companion of appellant, at the store of Magtibay. Appellant made himself vulnerable to retaliation from the companions of Mario. In fact, Mario's companion, Sofronio Aranas, was able to deliver several blows on appellant, causing injuries to his person. Had appellant pre-planned the killing of Mario, he would definitely have done it in a way that would free him from any retaliation.cralaw

    We also agree with the Public Attorney's Office that appellant cannot be convicted under Section 1, Paragraph 2 of P.D. No. 1866, which provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed."

    For conviction under this provision of the Decree, the prosecution has to prove that the accused used an unlicensed firearm to perpetrate the crime of homicide or murder. The prosecution presented Major Rizalino Leocadio, who testified that appellant admitted that the gun he used was not licensed. The admission was made during custodial investigation of the appellant without the assistance of counsel (TSN, June 23, 1987, p. 16). It is therefore inadmissible in evidence (People v. Jungco, 186 SCRA 714 [1990]).cralaw

    The prosecution could have easily secured a certification from the Philippine Constabulary to the effect that no firearm license was issued to appellant to possess and carry the gun used in the killing.cralaw

    Inasmuch as appellant is only guilty of the crime of homicide without any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty that can be imposed on him is reclusion temporal in its medium period (Revised Penal Code, Art. 249).cralaw

    WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant is found guilty only of Homicide. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (80 months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He is also sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.cralaw

    SO ORDERED.cralaw

    Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 96652   January 25, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NESTOR G. CASCALLA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED