for special penal laws cases

7/27/2019 For Special Penal Laws Cases

1/57

FOR SPECIAL PENALLAWS CASES

CASE NO. 1- PEOPLE VS NAVARRO

[G.R. Nos. 132696-97. February 12, 2001]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON NAVARRO, accused-

appellant.

D E C I S I O N

KAPUNAN, J.:

Ramon Navarro (accused-appellant) appeals his conviction for the crime of Murder with the Use ofan Unlicensed Firearm for which he was sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua and toindemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as damages by the Regional Trial Court,Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan.

Two (2) separate Informations were filed against accused-appellant for Murder (Criminal Case No.

3082-A) and Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions (Criminal Case No. 3083-A). The Information for murder reads:

That on or about August 28, 1987, in the evening, along the highway in Palamis, municipality of

Alaminos, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the

above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage ofnighttime and superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot Romeo

Calizar with a handgun which cause [sic] his untimely death as a consequence, to the damage andprejudice of his heirs.

CONTRARY to Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[1]

The Information for aggravated illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions reads:

That on or about August 28, 1987, in the evening along the highway in Palamis, municipality ofAlaminos, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,

control and custody a handgun without first securing the necessary license or permit to possesses [sic] thesame and the said handgun was used in shooting to death Romeo Calizar.

CONTRARY to Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.[2]

Accused-appellant was not allowed to post bail. At his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not

guilty to both charges. Thereafter, a joint trial of the two cases ensued.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn1


2/57

The case for the prosecution was based mainly on the testimony of Bob Regaspi. He testified that on28 August 1987, at 9:00 in the evening, he was driving a tricycle on his way home. He noticed that hewas following an owner-type jeep. The tricycle was about several meters behind the jeep. Both vehicleswere going towards the south. Before they reached Bugtong Bridge, the jeep suddenly stopped. Regaspihad to stop the tricycle behind the jeep because there were several vehicles on the other lane coming from

the opposite direction. Regaspi then saw accused-appellant got off from the right side of thejeep. Accused-appellant was carrying a .45 caliber gun. Regaspi also saw accused-appellant pull out aperson from the jeep. Accused-appellant kicked said person and then shot him three (3) times. The

victim was Romeo Calizar.[3]

According to Regaspi, he was able to identify accused-appellant as the assailant even if the killing

happened at night because there was sufficient illumination from the light of the jeep as well as the lightsof the other vehicles passing at the time. After he witnessed the incident, Regaspi proceeded to hishome. He did not report the crime to the police as he was afraid of accused-appellant. He said that there

were rumors that accused-appellant was a killer.[4]

Fearing for his life, Regaspi relocated to Manila and lived there for three (3) years. Before he left,however, he already told the victims wife, Demetria, that it was accused -appellant who killed herhusband. He returned to Pangasinan only in 1990 and resided at his mothers residence in Bolaney,Alaminos, Pangasinan. He also briefly stayed at his grandfathers house in Barangay Balingasay,

Bolinao.[5]

The prosecution also presented as its witnesses Demetria Calizar, Dr. Maria Victoria Orfinada, PO3Delfin Estabilla Flores and SPO3 Romeo De Guzman.

Demetria Calizar, wife of the victim, testified that she was in Bolinao, Pangasinan, when she learnedthat her husband was killed. It was her sister, Carmen Conde, who broke the news to her. Demetria just

gave birth at the time. Upon hearing about her husbands death, she immediately went to the funeralparlor and attended to the burial preparations. She spent about ten thousand pesos for the wake and burial

of her husband. At the time of his death, the victim was earning three hundred pesos a day as an itinerantempty bottle buyer. He was forty two (42) years old. The victim left behind five (5) children withDemetria. Finally, Demetria confirmed that Bob Regaspi told her that it was accused-appellant who shother husband.[6]

Dr. Maria Victoria Orfinada, Municipal Health Officer of Alaminos, Pangasinan, identified the

Certificate of Death

[7]

issued in connection with the death of Romeo Calizar. The certificate showed thatthe cause of death was severe hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds on the different parts of the

body.[8]

The certificate was issued by Dr. Manuel Navarro,[9]

the Municipal Health Officer at the time.Unfortunately, Dr. Navarro could no longer testify because he already died.

PO3 Delfin Estabillo Flores testified that he was on duty at the Philippine National Police (PNP)

Alaminos Police Station on 29 August 1987. Around 6:00 in the morning of said date, Flores received acall to respond to an alleged shooting incident that occurred at Barangay Palamis, Alaminos,

Pangasinan. Together with the other policemen on duty, Flores immediately proceeded to the said placeto investigate. When they arrived at the crime scene, they saw a man lying face down on the right side ofthe road going to Mabini. The said person, later identified to be Romeo Calizar, was already dead. They

recovered two (2) empty shells and two (2) slugs of a .45 caliber gun near the body.[10]

SPO3 Romeo De Guzman testified that he works in the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNPCamp Crame and that based on their records, accused-appellant is not licensed or authorized to possess orcarry a firearm.[11]

For its part, the defense presented the following witnesses: Mayor Leon Rivera, Rodolfo R. Aquino,PO3 Marciano Bacani, Rogelio Banogon, Leonora Arboleda and Danilo Malapit. Accused-appellantopted not to testify on his behalf.

Leon Rivera testified that during his incumbency as Mayor of Alaminos, he was not aware of anycriminal case having been filed against accused-appellant. He admitted on cross-examination, however,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn3


3/57

that the people of Alaminos once held a big rally against the alleged illegal activities, e.g., killings,robberies andjueteng, of the notorious Aguila Gang. Accused-appellant was widely believed to be theleader of said gang.

[12]

Rodolfo Aquino is a retired provincial prosecutor of Alaminos. He testified that during his stint asassistant provincial prosecutor and subsequently provincial prosecutor from 1983 up to 1990, he never

came across any criminal charge against accused-appellant apart from the present case .[13]

PO3 Marciano Bacani, member of the PNP of Alaminos, was presented to show that there was nomention of accused-appellant in the police blotter for 30 August 1987. Entry No. 4978 on said date stated

that the body of Romeo Calizar was found lying face down at the edge of the road in BarangayPalamis. He sustained multiple gunshot wounds. Two (2) empty shells and two (2) slugs of .45 calibergun were found near his body.[14]

In his direct testimony, Rogelio Banogon claimed that on 28 August 1987 at about 9:00 in theevening, he was riding a tricycle going to the town from Bolaney. He was on his way to buy medicine

for his son who was then having a stomachache. When the tricycle was near the Bugtong Bridge, heheard a gunshot. The driver immediately stopped his tricycle. Banogon alighted from the tricycle and

switched on his flashlight. He saw Bob Regaspi, the witness for the prosecution, holding a .45 calibergun. Banogon said he also saw a man lying down but that he did not see his face. Banogon asked Regaspiwhat happened and the latter allegedly said he shot the victim because he had sexual intercourse with all

his (Regaspis) aunties. Banogon did not report the matter to the police but proceeded to the town to buy

the medicine for his son.

[15]

Leonor Arboleda testified that some time on 9 May 1987, the victim, Romeo Calizar, was having a

drinking spree with her (Arboledas) husband and two other companions at their (Leonor and TeddyArboleda's) house. Demetria, wife of the victim, suddenly arrived and started to quarrel with her husband

over money matters. After their argument, Demetria allegedly uttered ipapatay kita to the victim.[16]

Danilo Malapit stated that the victim worked in the junk shop owned by his (Danilos)

father. Calizar bought empty bottles and delivered them to the junk shop. On 28 August 1987, Danilosaw the victim leave the junk shop at around 8:00 in the evening. The victim left in a tricycle driven byhis companion. The following morning, Danilo heard about the news of the victims death.[17]

After consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defense, the trial court renderedjudgment convicting accused-appellant for the crime of murder with the use of unlicensed firearm and

sentencing him to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the accused is declared GUILTY beyondreasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of unlicensed firearm and Criminal Case No. 3083-

A is considered a mere aggravating circumstance of the crime of Murder, together with the aggravatingcircumstance of treachery and nighttime. Accused is sentenced by reason hereof to suffer the singleindivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount ofP100,000.00.

Considering the recent events at the Provincial Jail in Lingayen, Pangasinan, where a week ago from thisdate of judgment, there five detention prisoners who escaped detention and considering the state ofsecurity and even the conditions at the Provincial Jail in Lingayen, Pangasinan, this Court orders

immediately the National Bureau of Investigation represented by Head Agent, Atty. Teofilo Galang,and/or his agents to bring the living body of the accused immediately today, upon receipt of this Decision,to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa to serve his sentence, subject to the automatic and requisitereview of this Decision by the highest court of the land.

IT IS SO ORDERED.[18]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn12


4/57

Accused-appellant accordingly filed his notice of appeal.[19]Thereafter, he filed his appellants briefalleging the following:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

First Assignment of Error

The Trial Court committed a reversible error in convicting the accused-appellant upon an uncorroborated

and incredible testimony proceeding from the mouth of an equally incredible witness;

Second Assignment of Error

The Trial Court committed grave and reversible error when in order to bolster its unjustified judgment ofconviction of the accused-appellant in the above-entitled case, cavalierly and without legal bases took

judicial notice of unproved, extraneous and doubtful facts and circumstances, in violation ofjurisprudence x x x;

Third Assignment of Error

The Trial Court committed reversible error in not taking into consideration the substantial albeit

circumstantial evidence testified to by the witnesses for the defense that point to a conspiracy among thealleged lone eye witness Bob Regaspi with his blood aunt, the widow Demetria Calizar as the authors andperpetrators of the murder of Romeo Calizar.[20]

The appeal must fail.

Accused-appellant impugns the credibility of the prosecution eyewitness, Bob Regaspi, alleging thathis testimony was marred by inconsistencies. Accused-appellant points to, among others, the following

alleged inconsistencies:

1. On direct-examination, Regaspi stated that he is a resident of Brgy. Bolaney, Alaminos,Pangasinan. However, on cross-examination, he mentioned that he is a resident of Brgy. Balingasay,Alaminos, Pangasinan;

2. Regaspi denied that he is a relative of Demetria Calizar, the wife of the victim. In her testimony,however, Demeteria admitted that Regaspi is her nephew as he is the son of her older sister, MonicaClave;

3. Regaspi claimed that he was driving a tricycle on the night of 28 August 1987 when he witnessed

the slaying of Romeo Calizar. He admitted, however, that he did not possess any license to drive saidvehicle. Further, while he (Regaspi) claimed that he merely borrowed the tricycle he was thendriving, he could not give the name of the owner thereof;

4. Regaspi testified that he saw accused-appellant shoot Romeo Calizar three (3) times. However,

there were only two (2) slugs and two (2) empty shells found near the body of Romeo Calizar.

[21]

The Court finds nothing unusual about the fact that Regaspi stated two different addresses as his

residence. As explained by him, after he came back from Manila, he resided in Brgy. Bolaney. However,there was also a time when he briefly resided with his grandfather in Brgy. Balingasay. Also, the fact thathe is a relative of the victims widow does not detract from Regaspis credibility as a witness. The weightof testimony of a witness is not impaired or in any way affected by his relationship to the victim whenthere is no showing of improper motive on the part of the witness.[22]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn19


5/57

Likewise, Regaspis admission that he did not have a drivers license does not negate the fact that hewas driving a tricycle at the time when he witnessed accused-appellant gun down Calizar. Indeed, a

person can still drive a vehicle even without possessing the necessary license albeit violating the trafficrules. Finally, whether there were two or three gunshots is immaterial. The certificate of death stated thatRomeo Calizar died of multiple gunshot wounds.

In any case, to the mind of the Court, these inconsistencies enumerated by accused-appellant do notmake the testimony of Regaspi unworthy of credence. As found by the trial court, Regaspis testimonywas straightforward and candid. He testified thus:

Q How long have you known Romeo Calizar?

A It is a long time, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, is Romeo Calizar still alive, if you know?

A He is already dead, sir.

Q Do you know how he died?

A Yes, sir. I know, sir.

Q How did he die?

A He was shot, sir.

Q Do you know who shot Romeo Calizar?

A I know, sir.

Q Who shot Romeo Calizar?

A It was Ramon Navarro, sir.

Q If Ramon Navarro is inside the court room, will you be able to recognize him, identify him andpoint to him?

A Yes, sir.

Q Will you please point on the accused, Ramon Navarro?

A (Witness pointing at the accused who was wearing a blue pants and shirt and with sun-

glasses and when asked his name answered Ramon Navarro).

COURT:

Where? The accused with sun-glasses?

PROS. USON:

Yes, your Honor.

Q Why do you say that it was Ramon Navarro who shot Romeo Calizar?

A I saw him with my two eyes, sir.

Q Where did Ramon Navarro shoot Romeo Calizar?

A In Palamis, sir.

Q Palamis. What town is that?

A Alaminos, Pangasinan, sir.

Q When did Ramon Navarro shoot Romeo Calizar at Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan?


6/57

A August 28, 1987, sir.

Q What time, more or less, if you know, did you see Ramon Navarro shot Romeo Calizar?

A At 9:00 oclock, sir.

Q 9:00 oclock, in the morning or evening?

A In the evening, sir.

Q Now, Mr. Witness, you said that you saw Ramon Navarro shoot Romeo Calizar along Palamis,

Alaminos, Pangasinan on August 28, 1987 at around the hour of 9:00 oclock in the evening. Letus go back to that day and time. Where were you when you saw Ramon Navarro shoot Romeo

Calisar?

A I was near them, sir.

Q What were you doing when you were near them?

A I was riding on a tricycle, sir.

Q Were you a passenger or a driver of that tricycle?

A I was the driver, sir.

Q How about Ramon Navarro, where was he in relation to you?

A He went down from the vehicle that they were riding on, sir.

Q He went down from what kind of, may I withdraw that, your Honor.

You said he went down. Are you saying he was also riding a vehicle?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was he riding before he went down?

A An owner-jeep, sir.

Q Where was the owner-jeep heading when you saw Ramon Navarro get down?

A It was facing south, sir.Q When you said that the jeep was facing south, how about you and your tricycle, where were you

also facing?

A It was also facing the south, sir.

Q How far were you and your tricycle from the jeep that was being ridden by Ramon Navarro?

A About three (3) meters, sir.

Q So you were following the jeep going south?

A Yes, sir. I was following the jeep.

Q You said a while ago, you saw Ramon Navarro get down from the jeep. Was the jeep stillrunning when he got down or was it stopped?

A It was stopped, sir.

Q How about you? When the jeep stopped, what did you do while you were following them?

A I also stopped my tricycle, sir.

Q When you stopped your tricycle, you saw Ramon Navarro get down from the jeep?


7/57

A Yes, sir.

Q What part of the jeep did he get off?

A In the right side, sir.

Q When you saw Ramon Navarro, may I withdraw.

Will you describe the appearance of Mr. Navarro when you saw him get down from the rightside of the jeep?

A He was carrying a gun, sir.Q By what means was he carrying the gun?

A He was holding it with his right hand, sir.

Q After you saw Ramon Navarro get down from the jeep with a gun on his right hand, what next

did you see happen?

A He pulled out a person from the jeep, sir.

Q What happened to the person that he pulled out from the jeep?

A He kicked the person, sir.

Q After Ramon Navarro kicked the person, what next did Ramon Navarro do?A He shot him three (3) times, sir.

Q What happened to the person whom you saw Ramon Navarro shoot three times?

A When he kicked the person, the person fell down on the ground and he shot him three times, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, how were you able to see Mr. Ramon Navarro kicked the person and shot him threetimes when it was around 9:00 oclock in the evening?

A The light of their jeep was on, sir, and the light of my tricycle was also on and also the light of thejeep coming from the opposite direction.

Q What kind of gun was used by Ramon Navarro that you saw in shooting the person he pulled out

from the jeep?

A It was short gun, sir, a 45.

Q A short gun, 45. Are you familiar with 45 caliber guns?

A I know, sir, because I used to see that kind of gun.

Q Now, Mr. Witness, you saw that the gun used was short and according to you, it was a 45caliber. Will you describe the gun used, let us say the color?

A It was shiny, sir.

Q How could you say it was shiny when it was nighttime at around 9:00 oclock?

A It was illuminated, sir.

Q And what illuminated the gun to make you so sure that it was a 45 caliber?

A It was illuminated by the light of my tricycle, sir.

Q By the way, Mr. Witness, who was that person whom you saw pulled out from the jeep by Ramon

Navarro, kicked him and then shot him three times with a 45 caliber pistol?

A It was Romeo Calisar, sir.


8/57

Q After you saw Ramon Navarro pulled out Calizar out of the jeep, kicked him and shot him threetimes with a 45 caliber pistol, what next did you do?

A I drove the tricycle and went home, sir.

Q Mr. Witness, did you come to know later on whatever happened to Romeo Calizar as a result ofhis being shot three times with a 45 caliber pistol by Ramon Navarro?

ATTY MONTEMAYOR:

I think that is already answered in the beginning, your Honor. It was already there.

PROS. USON:

Killed.

COURT:

Yes, already answered.

ATTY. MONTEMAYOR:

Yes, your Honor, he knows what happened to him.

COURT:

Objection sustained.PROS. USON:

Q So, you went home after you witnessed the incident. Did you not report to the Police station ofAlaminos, Pangasinan what you saw?

A No, sir, because there were rumors that he was a killer.[23]

The inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant refer merely to inconsequential details and notto the crux of the casethat Regaspi actually saw accused-appellant gun down Calizar. Well-settled isthe rule that inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken thecredibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[24]

Accused-appellant likewise attempts to discredit Regaspi by faulting him for not reporting the crimeimmediately to the authorities. Regaspi admitted that he fled to Manila after witnessing the incident and

returned to Alaminos, Pangasinan in 1990. He disclosed to the police what he knew about the killingonly in 1995. The fact that it took Regaspi and the wife of the victim, Demetria, almost eight (8) years

before they filed a criminal complaint against accused-appellant cannot be taken against them. Theirinitial reluctance to implicate accused-appellant is undoubtedly borne out of fear given the lattersreputation in the community. As found by the trial court:

From the time that the incident occurred on or about August 28, 1987, it took the widow and her witnesseight years more or less before a complaint was filed for Murder against the accused (Pages 3-7,Records). The delay was understandable because of fear of Ramon Navarro, the alleged leader of the

Aguila Gang.

This Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that Alaminos, Pangasinan was held tightly gripped by thecriminal elements and its citizenry cowered in fear, of their lives being endangered and wasted. Hence,

literally speaking, the citizens in one occasion in 1995 stood up as one to denounce the Aguila Gang. Inthat rally referred to, to seek an assurance from the authorities for justice and protection and for theattainment of a just and lasting peace and order, the government authorities, with equal vigor and zeal,

responded to the numerous cases filed against the accused of crimes dating back to the year 1987. Manywitnesses and offended parties came up by then, encouraged by their belief that their governments

commitment for their protection from the lawless element has been revitalized by the entire citizenry, who
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn23


9/57

were awakened and rose up as one to prevent further destruction of lives and for the protection of theinterest of humanity.

This judicial notice adopted by the Court finds its support in the testimony of one of the witnesses for thedefense, in the person of the Honorable Mayor of Alaminos, Pangasinan, Leon M. Rivera, Jr. Mayor

Rivera, Jr. testified that he became mayor of the municipality of Alaminos from 1973 continuously up tothe present; that he knows Ramon Navarro, the accused in these cases; that there was a rally of Alaminosresidents against accused Ramon Navarro (TSN, January 31, 1997, Page 6) with a very big participationfrom the residents of the municipality; that the accused is the leader of the Aguila Gang and the rally that

was conducted in 1995 by the citizens of Alaminos is precisely centered on the alleged illegal activities ofthe Aguila Gang, with respect to unsolved killings, robberies and proliferation of jueteng attributed to theleadership of the accused (TSN, Page 7, supra).

[25]

Accused-appellant opines that it was highly unlikely for accused-appellant to have committed the

crime considering that, as testified to by Regaspi, there were numerous vehicles passing by the place andthere was sufficient illumination from these cars. Accused-appellant posits that it is totally andabsolutely unbelievable that any man who is not a total fool or mentally deranged could still proceed andcommit such grievous and brutal act of murder knowing that all his actions can be seen clearly under thefull glare of the lights of numerous oncoming vehicles. [26]This argument is untenable. That accused-

appellant killed Romeo Calizar under the circumstances testified to by Regaspi is notincredible. Criminal offenders have been known to execute their evil designs in such audacious and

brazen manner. Indeed, crimes are now committed in the most unexpected places and in brazen disregardof authorities.[27]

In the second assignment of error, accused-appellant contends that the trial court based its judgment

of conviction upon unproved, extraneous and doubtful facts and circumstances. Accused-appellantparticularly refers to the judicial cognizance taken by the trial court regarding accused-appellants

notoriety. As a backgrounder, the trial court quoted in its decision the August 1995 PNP RECOM IBULLETIN thus:

As a backgrounder and by way of judicial notice, the Court quotes the August 1995 PNP RECOM I

BULLETIN, in Pages 32-33 of the Special Report, in order to give a sufficient background on who theaccused is in these cases:

Alaminos, a bustling seaside town of Pangasinan which had been silent witness for seven years to a seriesof salvages (summary killings) attributed to a self-styled group of vigilantes who had become notorious

and untouchable, could now be said to be enjoying once again the serene atmosphere it used to experiencein years of yore.

This is so because the leader of the vigilante group, tagged as Aguila Gang for the eagle tattoo sportedby its members, had already been arrested by joint elements of the Alaminos police station and 1stprovincial mobile force company of the Pangasinan PNP provincial command, with the assistance of the

intelligence group from the Ilocos PNP regional command.

With the arrest of gang leader Ramon Navarro y Escobar, second most wanted person in Region I, the

Aguila Gang, reportedly composed of eight to ten armed members and believed to be behind the violentdeath of at least 28 persons since it was organized sometime in 1986 until October in 1993, is now said to

be neutralized.

BIRTH OF AGUILA

The execution, mostly of suspected criminals started late 1986 when then Lt. Marlou C. Chan, then themunicipal police chief, organized a vigilante group to go after cattle rustlers, thieves and drug pushers.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn25


10/57

At the core of the group, according to the testimony of Reniedo to the NBI, were he, Navarro, the slainBito and two others who are still being tracked down by police and military intelligence agents. Navarrowas a former military informer.

In the beginning, the people tend to approve of their activities, especially after seeing known criminals

being killed one after another, said Dr. Pedro Braganza in an interview with the Philippine DailyInquirer.

OPERATION: MARIA KAPRA

Including the charges filed by the NBI, Navarro was charged for nine counts of criminal cases, ranging

from rape, murder and illegal possession of firearms, before the regional trial court in Alaminos. Thisplaced him as the second most wanted person in Region I with a recommended reward of P100,000.[28]

Contrary to accused-appellants contention, the foregoing backgrounder or judicial notice taken by

the trial court was not the basis for his conviction. Rather, accused-appellants conviction was based onthe strength of the prosecution's evidence against him. It must be underscored that accused-appellant was

positively identified by Regaspi as the person who shot Romeo Calizar on that fateful day of 28 August

1987. The defense tried to discredit Regaspi by imputing to him the crime. Rogelio Banogon[29]

andLeonora Arboleda

[30]were presented by the defense to support its theory that it was Regaspi, conspiring

with his aunt and the victims wife, Demetria, who killed Romeo Calizar. Thus, in his third assignment of

error, accused-appellant avers that the trial court committed reversible when it did not give any credenceto the testimonies of these defense witnesses.

It is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimony is amatter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnessesfirsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination .[31]In this case, thetrial court found Regaspi to be the more credible witness and accorded his testimony full faith and

credence. Upon the other hand, the trial court found the testimony of Arboleda phony and merefabrication[32]and that of Banogon inherently improbable.[33]

The Court finds no cogent reason to overturn these findings. Regaspis testimony on the manner by

which accused-appellant killed Romeo Calizar was straightforward, clear and consistent. The fact thatonly Regaspi came out as an eyewitness to indict accused-appellant does not detract from his

credibility. Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of theirtestimonies. The testimony of a single witness if positive and credible is sufficient to support aconviction. Indeed, criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses against them, but on the

credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of theaccused beyond a shadow of doubt.[34]Moreover, the defense failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of

Regaspi to testify against accused-appellant. In the absence of any evidence or any indicium that theprosecutions main witness harbored ill motives against the accused, the presumption is that he was not somoved and that his testimony was untainted with bias.[35]

The guilt of accused-appellant for the killing of Calizar has thus been established beyond reasonabledoubt in this case. Moreover, the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of

treachery in the commission of the crime. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 248.Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another,shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporalin its maximum period to death

[36]if

committed with any of the following circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, oremploying means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

x x x
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn28


11/57

There is treachery when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim nochance whatsoever to defend himself. The two conditions for treachery to be present are: (1) that at thetime of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciouslyadopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[37]

As graphically described by the trial court, there is treachery in the case at bar because

[F]rom the evidence presented, the poor victim was dragged from inside the jeep by the accused and whenhe was on the ground, he was kicked and when he fell down, he was shot three times. The shooting of the

victim by the accused is all of a sudden. From all indications, there was no opportunity for the deceased todefend himself or to retaliate and the means of execution was deliberately adopted. The accused was in

the jeep together with the deceased. The deceased would not have ridden into that jeep if he knows that hewill be killed. So that when the deceased rode into that jeep before he was killed, the offender must have

consciously adopted that particular means or method by use of a motor vehicle in order that the accusedsdastardly act could be accomplished. The Court takes note of the time of the killing at night and the factthat the victim was dragged from inside the jeep by the accused and after the victim was outside of the

jeep, the accused kicked him and shot him three times. These circumstances alone would provide thatscenario that indeed, the victim was not in the position to defend himself.[38]

Finally, following the doctrine enunciated inPeople vs. Molina[39]and reiterated inPeople vs.

Feloteo[40]andPeople vs. Lazaro,[41]among others, the trial court appropriately considered the separate

criminal charge of illegal possession of firearms against accused-appellant merely as an aggravatingcircumstance in this case. As the law stands today, there can no longer be a separate conviction of thecrime of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 in view of the amendments introduced byRepublic Act No. 8294.[42]Instead, illegal possession of firearms is simply taken as an aggravating

circumstance in murder or homicide pursuant to Section 1 of R.A. No. 8294. Said provision of law readsin part:

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearmshall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

In illegal possession of firearms, two (2) requisites must be established: (1) the existence of thesubject firearm, and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the

corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence.[43]

The first element the existence ofthe firearm - was indubitably established by the prosecution. Regaspi actually saw accused-appellantshoot the victim with a .45 caliber gun. Two empty shells and two slugs of a .45 caliber gun were

recovered near the body of the victim by the police authorities and these were offered in evidence by theprosecution. Further, the testimony of SPO3 Romeo De Guzman of the Firearms and Explosives Office

of the PNP Camp Crame attesting that based on their records, accused-appellant is not licensed orauthorized to possess or carry a firearm suffices to prove the second element. The trial court, therefore,

judiciously convicted accused-appellant for the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm.

At the time of the commission of the offense at bar, the penalty prescribed for murder was reclusiontemporalin its maximum period to death.

[44]Since there was an aggravating circumstance of the use of an

illegally possessed firearm in the commission thereof,[45]the law enjoins the imposition of the maximumpenalty.[46]In this case, however, the penalty of death cannot be imposed on accused-appellant because

the crime was committed prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659, the law imposing the deathpenalty on heinous crimes. Accordingly, the trial court correctly imposed on accused-appellant thepenalty ofreclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision, dated 25 February 1998, is herebyAFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132696_97.htm#_edn37


12/57

CASE NO. 2- PEOPLE VERSUS CASTILLO

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 131592-93. February 15, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO,accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.: JPUNO

With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm

in murder or homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a specialaggravating circumstance.

In the case at bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder andIllegal Possession of Firearms in two (2) separate Informations, thus:

Criminal Case No. 45708:

"That on or about the 14th day of November, 1995 in the City of Iloilo, Philippinesand within the jurisdiction of this Court, armed with a handgun, with deliberateintent and without justifiable motive, with evident premeditation, by means oftreachery and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and criminally shoot, hit and wound Rogelio Abawag with the said gun,with which herein accused was then provided at the time, thereby causing uponsaid Rogelio Abawag bullet wounds on vital parts of his body, which caused hisinstantaneous death.

"CONTRARY TO LAW."[1]

Criminal Case No. 45709: HTML

"That on or about the 14th day of November, 1995 in the City of Iloilo, Philippinesand within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, with deliberate intent and

without justifiable motive, have in his possession and control one (1) Homemade.38 caliber revolver without serial number (and) three (3) live ammunitionswithout the authority and permit to possess or carry the same.

"CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]

The scene of the crime was the then on-going construction site of Gaisano Building in Lapaz,Iloilo City. On November 14, 1995, at about 8 a.m.,ROBERTO LUSTICA, a construction worker,was on the last rung of the stairs on the third floor of the Gaisano building when he saw his co-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn1


13/57

workerROGELIO ABAWAG being closely pursued by accused JULIAN CASTILLO, a lead manin the same construction site. During the chase, the accused pointed a gun at Abawag and shothim. Abawag, then about a half meter away from the accused, fell on his knees beside a pile ofhollow blocks.[3]

FRANKLIN ACASO, a mason working on the third floor of the Gaisano building, heard the firstshot. Initially, he did not pay attention to it as he thought that the sound came from one of theirconstruction equipments. Seconds later, he heard a second shot and a person screaming:"Ouch, that is enough!" When he looked towards the direction of the sound, he saw the accused

in front of Abawag, about a meter away, pointing a .38 caliber revolver at the latter. Abawag wasthen leaning on a pile of hollow blocks, pleading for mercy. The accused shot Abawag a thirdtime despite the latter's imploration. The accused then fled, leaving Abawag lifeless.[4]

The management of Gaisano reported the shooting incident to the police authorities whoimmediately rushed to the scene of the crime. JUN LIM, alias"Akoy," brother-in-law of the victimand also a construction worker at the Gaisano, volunteered to go with the police and assist themin locating the accused. yacats

The police, accompanied by Akoy, proceeded to Port San Pedro where they saw the accusedon board a vessel bound for Cebu. When they boarded the vessel, Akoy positively identified theaccused to the police as the assailant. The accused attempted to escape when the police

identified themselves but the police caught up with him. Upon inquiry, the accused deniedcomplicity in the killing of Abawag. The police found in his possession a .38 caliber handmaderevolver, three (3) empty shells and three (3) live ammunitions. Further inquiry revealed that theaccused owned the gun but had no license to possess it. The police then took the accused intocustody and charged him for the murder of Abawag and for illegal possession of firearm.[5]

The self-defense theory hoisted by the accused who testified solely for the defense was notgiven credence by the trial court. Thus, he was convicted ofHomicide, as the prosecution failedto prove the alleged qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, andofIllegal Possession of Firearm, aggravated by homicide. The trial court disposed asfollows:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused guilty of thecrimes of homicide and illegal possession of firearm aggravated by homicidebeyond the shadow of the doubt, he is hereby sentenced as follows:

"1) For the crime of homicide, he is sentenced to anindeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years ofprision mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen(17) years and Four(4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum;

"2) For illegal possession of firearm which is aggravated byhomicide, he is sentenced to a penalty of death;

"3) To pay the family of his victim P50,000.00 as indemnity andanother P50,000.00 as moral damages; and

"4) To pay the cost.

"SO ORDERED."[6](emphasis supplied)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn3


14/57

On automatic review by this Court, appellant impugns solely his conviction for illegal possessionof firearm for which he was sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.

Prefatorily, we stress that although the appellant himself does not refute the findings of the trialcourt regarding the homicide aspect of the case, the Court nevertheless made a thoroughexamination of the entire records of the case, including the appellant's conviction for homicide,based on the settled principle that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review.Our evaluation leads us to conclude that the trial court's ruling on the homicide aspect is clearlysupported by the records. Thus, we shall concentrate on the appellant's lone assignment of

error with respect to his conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearm. olanski

P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was amended on June 6,1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 alsoprovided that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,such use shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.[7]This amendmenthas two (2) implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide ormurder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special aggravatingcircumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravatingcircumstance of illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty shallbe imposed on the accused.[8]

Prescinding therefrom, and considering that the provisions of the amendatory law are favorableto herein appellant, the new law should be retroactively applied in the case at bar.[9]It was thuserror for the trial court to convict the appellant of two (2) separate offenses, i.e., Homicide andIllegal Possession of Firearms, and punish him separately for each crime. Based on the facts ofthe case, the crime for which the appellant may be charged is homicide, aggravated by illegalpossession of firearm, the correct denomination for the crime, and not illegal possession offirearm, aggravated by homicide as ruled by the trial court, as it is the former offense whichaggravates the crime of homicide under the amendatory law.

The appellant anchors his present appeal on the assertion that his conviction was unwarrantedas no proof was adduced by the prosecution that he was not licensed to possess the subjectfirearm. In their Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Appellee's Brief, the Solicitor General joined

cause with the appellant.[10]haideem

We agree.

Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existenceof the subject firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gundid not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus

probandiof establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with theprosecution.[11]

The first element -- the existence of the firearm -- was indubitably established by theprosecution. Prosecution eyewitness Acaso saw appellant shoot the victim thrice with a .38caliber revolver.[12]Appellant himself admitted that he did not turn over the gun to the securityguards in the building after the shooting.[13]The same gun was recovered from the appellant andoffered in evidence by the prosecution. However, no proof was adduced by the prosecution toestablish the second element of the crime, i.e., that the appellant was not licensed to possessthe firearm. This negative fact constitutes an essential element of the crime as merepossession, by itself, is not an offense. The lack of a license or permit should have been provedeither by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and ExplosivesUnit that the accused was not a licensee of the subject firearm[14]or that the type of firearm
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn7


15/57

involved can be lawfully possessed only by certain military personnel.[15]Indeed, if the means ofproving a negative fact is equally within the control of each party, the burden of proof is on theparty averring said negative fact. As the Information alleged that the appellant possessed anunlicensed gun, the prosecution is duty-bound to prove this allegation. It is the prosecution whohas the burden of establishing beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged,consistent with the basic principle that an accused is presumed innocent until provenguilty.[16]Thus, if the non-existence of some fact is aconstituent element of the crime,the onus is upon the State to prove this negative allegation of non-existence.[17]kirsten

Hence, in the case at bar, although the appellant himself admitted that he had no licensefor the gun recovered from his possession, his admission will not relieve the prosecutionof its duty to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's lack of license or permitto possess the gun. In People vs. Solayao,[18]we expounded on this doctrine, thus:

"x x x (b)y its very nature, an 'admission is the mere acknowledgement of a factor of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate thespeaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his guilt.' In other words, it is astatement by defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues pending, in connectionwith proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself,insufficient to authorize conviction. From the above principles, this Court caninfer that an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond

doubt the commission of the crime charged.

"Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature.As such, it does not fallunder Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states:

'An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course ofthe trial or other proceedings in the same case does not requireproof.'

"Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does notprove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possessionof firearm. It does not even establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters thecase for the prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence orlack of a license." (emphasis supplied) CODES

Additionally, as pointed out by both the appellant and the Solicitor General, the extrajudicialadmission was made without the benefit of counsel. Thus, we hold that the appellant may onlybe held liable for the crime of simple homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

We come now to the penalty. The crime of homicide is penalized by reclusiontemporal.[19]There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attendant to the commissionof the crime, the penalty ofreclusion temporalshall be imposed in its medium period, i.e., fromfourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty shall be within therange ofprision mayor, i.e., from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, asminimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period of from fourteen (14) years, eight (8)months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision is MODIFIED. Appellant Julian Castillo yLumayro is found guilty of Homicide. He is sentenced to imprisonment of from nine (9) yearsand four (4) months of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine(9) days ofreclusion temporalas maximum. However, the civil indemnity and moral damages
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/131592_93.htm#_ftn15


16/57

awarded by the trial court to the heirs of the victim in the total amount of one hundred thousand(P100,000.00) pesos are affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

CASE NO. 3- PEOPLE VS MOLINA

[G.R. No. 115835-36. July 22, 1998]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. VERIATO MOLINA, RUBEN MOLINA, GREGORIO

GAJAS, CASIMIRO (a.k.a. Quintin) CASTILLO, JESUS ARIOLA, JOHN DOE, RICHARD DOE,

MICHAEL DOE AND MARK DOE,accused.

VERIATO MOLINA and RUBEN MOLINA, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:

While affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for the murder of the late MayorBonifacio Uy, the Court applies in their favor Republic Act No. 8294,[1]which amended PD No.1866. Under the new law, the use of an unlicensed weapon in the commission of homicide ormurder is considered simply as an aggravating circumstance and no longer a separateoffense. Thus, said law effectively modified our ruling in People vs. Quijada,[2]in which we heldthat the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing results in two separate crimes -- one, for theaggravated form of illegal possession of firearm and, two, for homicide or murder.

The Case

A shooting incident, reportedly between two political factions, resulted in the death of atown mayor, a Sangguniang Bayan member and two others; and the wounding of at least sixother persons. This was the subject of the two Informations filed by Senior State ProsecutorNilo C. Mariano before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, against Veriato Molina,Ruben Molina, Gregorio Gajas, Casimiro Castillo, Jesus Ariola and four Does.

The first Information,[3]dated January 31, 1990, charged the above accused with multiplemurder and multiple frustrated murder[4]allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the evening of August 14, 1989, at Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Ilagan,Province of Isabela, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, aforenamed persons,conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with

intent to kill, treachery, abuse of superiority, and with the aid of armed men, and of nocturnity, did thenand there assault and shoot Mayor Bonifacio Uy, Municipal Councilor (Sangguniang Bayan Member)Antonio Manaligod, Jaime Vargas, and Policarpio Estrada, with a cal. 38 revolver, cal. 30 garand rifle,

and armalite rifles (M-14s and M-16s), thus inflicting gunshot wounds on vital parts of their heads andbodies, back and front, which caused their deaths as a consequence, and the serious wounding of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn1


17/57

MANUEL MARIANO, ANDRES FIGAROLA, MOISES DE LA CRUZ and WILMA ACIERTO, on thevital parts of their bodies, which ordinarily would cause their deaths, thus performing all the acts ofexecution which should have produced the crime of [m]ultiple [m]urder as a consequence thereof, butwhich, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will, that is, by the timelymedical care rendered to Manuel Mariano, Andres Figarola, Moises de la Cruz, and Wilma Acierto,

which prevented their deaths. In the case of Mayor Bonifacio Uy, even when dead or in the throes ofdeath, he was still stabbed with a bladed weapon by said group, sustaining stab wounds at his back andabdomen resulting in the evisceration of the intestines[;] said acts were no longer necessary but were

manifestations of cruelty and/or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

The other Information,[5]bearing the same date, charged the same accused with illegalpossession and carrying of firearms and ammunitions outside their respective residences,[6]asnarrated below:

That on or about the evening of August 14, 1989, at Barangay San Antonio, Municipality of Ilagan,Province of Isabela, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, aforenamed persons, conspiring,and confederating with one another, had in their respective possessions the following firearms, towit: Veriato Molina - an M-14 armalite rifle; Ruben Molina - a cal. 38 revolver; Gregorio Gajas,Casimiro Castillo and Jesus Ariola - M-16 armalite rifles; and John Doe, Richard Doe, Michael Doe, and

Mark Doe - M-16 armalite rifles and a cal. 30 garand rifle, which were loaded with their correspondingammunitions, without the necessary license and/or authority to possess and carry the said firearms and

ammunitions outside their residence issued by the corresponding government authorities, and which theyused in the shooting and killing of Mayor Bonifacio Uy, Municipal Councilor (Sanggunian Member)Antonio Manaligod, Jaime Vargas, and Policarpio Estrada, and the serious wounding of Manuel Mariano,

Andres Figarola, Moises de la Cruz, and Wilma Acierto with intent to kill, treachery, abuse of superiorityand with the aid of armed men and of nocturnity.

Subsequently, the widows of the deceased victims filed with this Court a petition for transferof venue.[7]They feared that the accused, who were political leaders of the provincial governor,would use such connection to influence the trial of the case. Said petition was favorablygranted.[8]The Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108, was assigned to continue withthe joint trial of the cases. In a Decision[9]promulgated on June 3, 1994, the charges weredisposed by the court a quo as follows:[10]

WHEREFORE, considering all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

A. FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Acquitting accused Gregorio Gajas, Casimiro (a.k.a. Quintin) Castillo, and Jesus Ariola for failure ofthe prosecution to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt, in both cases.

2. In Criminal Case No. 1287 for [m]ultiple [m]urder and [f]rustrated [m]urder, finding accused RubenMolina and Veriato Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of [m]ultiple [m]urder for the death of the

following: Mayor Bonifacio Uy, Councilor Antonio Manaligod, Civilian Security Officer PolicarpioEstrada and Civilian Security Officer Jaime Vargas, and [f]rustrated [m]urder for the serious wounding of

Andres Figarola, and sentencing them each to four (4) [r]eclusion [p]erpetua for the death of the fourvictims; [f]or [f]rustrated [m]urder committed on Andres Figarola, the two accused are sentenced to serveimprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS to EIGHT (8) YEARSand TWENTY (20) DAYS of[p]rision [m]ayor.

3. In Criminal Case No. 1288 for [i]llegal [p]ossession of [f]irearm and [a]mmunition, this crime nothaving been absorbed by the earlier offense considering that illegal possession is covered by a special law

while murder is a crime under the Revised Penal Code, Ruben Molina and Veriato Molina are both found
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn5


18/57

guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS,FOUR (4) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY ofreclusion temporal.

4. There being f\]

our (4) perpetual penalties to be served by Ruben Molina and Veriato Molina, the maximum simultaneousservice of sentence of each accused shall in no case exceed forty (40) years. (Article 70, RPC as amended

by CA 217, threefold rule.)

5. The preventive imprisonment at Pasay City Jail [of] the two accused Ruben Molina and VeriatoMolina shall be deductible.

B. FOR THE CIVIL LIABILITY

The death of the victims having been established beyond doubt as the result of the shooting, a wrongfulact of the accused who conspired, all the widows are entitled to damages for the death of their respectivehusbands.

For MERCEDES QUA UY

She is entitled to receive P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of her husband, Mayor BonifacioUy. She is likewise entitled to moral damages as his death was established beyond doubt as the result ofshooting by the accused. The moral damages covers wounded feelings, mental anguish, moral shock

which are the proximate result of the wrongful act or omission of accused (Art. 2217, Civil Code) andmoral damages is assessed in the amount of P1,000,000.00, considering the [m]ayors rank and the highregard the community has for him.

For COUNCILOR ANTONIO MANALIGOD, his widow or his heir is entitled to receive the amountof P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the councilor, andP500,000.00 as moral damages.

For Mrs. ANGELITA ESTRADA and Mrs. SALVACION VARGAS, widows of the two civilian securityagents of Mayor Bonifacio Uy, the amount of P50,000.00 each for the death of their respective

husbands. Each of the widows is also entitled to receive as moral damages from the accused the amountof P250,000.00.

All the widows/heirs are also entitled to P15,000.00 each as funeral expenses, all of the victims havingbeen buried in Isabela.

For ANDRES FIGAROLA

Both accused, Ruben Molina and Veriato Molina shall solidarily be liable to Andres Figarola in theamount of P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.

Both accused to pay costs of suit.

The two accused, Ruben Molina and Veriato Molina, were charged with [m]ultiple [m]urder which are

capital offenses. They were allowed to bail out after the prosecution submitted the motion to bail with nosufficient evidence yet proving that their guilt [was] strong, such that this Court ruled in favor of

accuseds temporary liberty conditioned on the posting of a bond in the amount of P150,000.00 each, incash. Now that a conviction has been rendered finding them both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

charge of [m]ultiple [m]urder, they are no longer entitled to bail as a matter of right.


19/57

The basic governing principle on the right of the accused to bail is laid down in Section 3 of Rule 114 ofthe 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which provides:

Sec. 3. Bail, a matter of right; exception. -- All persons in custody shall before final conviction, beentitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged with a capital offense or an offense which, under

the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is punishable by reclusionperpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Pursuant to the aforecited provision, an accused who is charged with a capital offense or an offense

punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appealsthe case to this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of the offensecharged is strong.

Accused Belarmino Divina was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the crime of murder which isan offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Pursuant to SC Administrative Circular No. 2-92, he is nolonger entitled to bail even if he appeals to us since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his

guilt is strong. (People vs. Divina, SCRA 221, p. 223, April 7, 1993.)

The Jail Warden, Pasay City Jail, is now directed to detain the two and to deliver them to the Bureau ofCorrection immediately with escorts.

The FactsVersion of the Prosecution

Evidence for the prosecution consists of testimonies of seventeen witnesses and nearlyforty principal exhibits. Part of the trial courts summary of the facts reads:

ROLANDO DREZA testified that as one of the civilian security officers of the deceased/victim MayorBonifacio Uy, he reported for work on August 14, 1989 at 7:00 in the morning. He was in the office

when the Mayor received an invitation to administer the oath of the new officers of the Parents-TeachersAssociation at the Agro Industrial School in Barangay San Antonio, Ilagan, Isabela. The [m]ayor

consented and left the office at 11:00 oclock a.m. with Councilor Antonio Manaligod, DILG OfficerPotenciano Tabije and four (4) civilian security men -- Policarpio Estrada, Rolando Dreza, RodolfoBunagan and Jaime Vargas. They had lunch upon arrival at the school. Later, at 3:00 oclock p.m., the

program started right in front of the school and this lasted [until] 5:00 oclock p.m., followed by somesocializing and food and drink session, singing and guitar playing. They ended at about 10:30 oclock

p.m. Barangay Captain Veriato Molina invited the Mayor to a funeral wake in the house of VenturaHernandez, about 200 meters from the school. Mayor Uy obliged, and with Councilor Manaligod, Mr.Tabije, Barangay Capt. Molina and other officials of the PTA, followed by the Mayors civilian security

men, proceeded to the wake, walking. Their vehicle, the NISSAN 4 x 4, was attended to by Bunagan.

When the [m]ayor and Barangay Captain Veriato Molina arrived, Ruben Molina (another accused anduncle of Veriato) was already there. He and the [m]ayor greeted each other before the [m]ayor

entered the house where the body of the girl was lying in state. When he came out, he (the [m]ayor)joined Ruben Molina. The two conversed[;] Dreza heard Ruben Molinas remark: Pare, ang saya-saya

ninyo sa eskwelahan, and the [m]ayors answer, Ikaw kasi, wala ka roon. Dreza also heard Wala nabang natira from Ruben (which Dreza assumed refer[red] to the drinks). To this the [m]ayor replied, Ifyou want, lets buy some more (in Tagalog) but Ruben assured he [would] take care, requested Veriat oto buy. Veriato left and returned 30-40 minutes later, with bottles. Veriato was seen whispering to Ruben

before leaving the place.


20/57

Ruben opened the bottle, took one shot, followed by the [m]ayor who also took one shot. Theconversation grew heated, but Dreza opined it was because they (Ruben and the [m]ayor) had a previousstanding grudge against each other.

The further questions and answers, in the direct examination conducted by Private Prosecutor Mario

Ongkiko on [W]itness Rolando Dreza on January 8, 1992, follows:

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And when the conversation became heated will you describe to the HonorableCourt the events that eventually followed?

A I heard Ruben Molina uttered to Mayor Uy, in Ilocano, Ukinam (Putang Ina mo).

Q And what was the reaction of Mayor Uy?

A Mayor Uy reacted immediately and he threw a kick at Ruben Molina.

Q And do you know if Ruben Molina was hit?

A I did not know if he was hit or not.

Q And what happened after Mayor Uy threw a kick at Ruben Molina?

A When I saw that, I brought the [m]ayor away from Ruben Molina.Q And what happened next?

A When I was leading Mayor Uy away from Ruben Molina, that was the time when Isaw Bgy. Captain Veriato Molina approached [sic] with a gun (baril).

Q My question is, do you know what kind of gun Bgy. Captain Molina was carrying?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was it?

A It was an M-14 folded, sir.

Q And what happened when Bgy. Capt. Molina approached with a folded M-14, didhe utter any word or words?

A What I heard was, Bgy. Capt. Molina uttered, Papatayin ko kayo.

Q Was this in Tagalog or in Ilocano?

A It was in Tagalog.

Q And after you heard Bgy. Capt. Molina uttered those words, what happened?

A Tumakbo po ako.

x x x x x x x x x

Q And did you hear anything while you were running?

A That was when I heard many shots.

Q Do you know or did you see anyone firing any of those shots?

A I only saw Bgy. Capt. Veriato Molina firing shots.

(TSN, Jan. 8, 1992, pp. 35 to 36)

Atty. Ongkiko:


21/57

Q And do you recall what happened after you heard shots?

A After I heard the gun fire, I saw Mayor Uy clutching a post already weak(mahinang-mahina na), and I concluded that he was hit.

(TSN, p. 37, Jan. 8, 1992)

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And when you saw the [m]ayor in a reclining position, his feet moving, what elsedid you see or notice?

A Then I saw Bgy. Capt. Veriato Molina returned [sic] and again open fire at the[m]ayor.

Q Do you know what weapon did Bgy. Capt. Molina use this time?

A He was using the same M-14 folded.

Clarified by Fiscal Vibandor when he asked additional direct examination:

Fiscal Vibandor:

Q Mr. Witness, you said that you saw accused Veriato Molina holding a firearm, andit was an M-14 firearm?

A Yes, sir.

Q Why do you know that the accused was holding an M-14 firearm?

A Because I used to be with the [m]ilitary[;] that is why I know this type of firearm.

Q And will you describe before this Court how long that firearm [was] which theaccused was carrying at that time?

A If it is folded, it is about this long.

(Witness indicating a length of about 2 feet).

Q And have you seen the magazine of this M-14 firearm?

A Yes, sir, short magazine.

Q And how long is the big magazine?

A The usual is a 20-round magazine, sir.

Q And at the time that you saw the accused Veriato Molina, holding this type offirearm, do you recall the color of the firearm he was carrying at that time?

A It was camouflage green.

(TSN, January 8, 1992, pp. 47-48.)

The above testimony was substantially corroborated by two other prosecution witnesses,Rodolfo Bunagan[11]and Andres Figarola.[12]The latter --whose left leg was wounded during the assault and later amputated -- added that, uponrealizing he had been shot, he took off his belt and tied it around his wounded leg. We quotethis relevant portion of his testimony:

Q. After you tied the turniquet [sic] what happened next?

A. After I tied the turniquet [sic] I looked around [and] the shooting has [sic]stopped. That was when I saw Veriato Molina approached [sic] Mayor Uy with along firearm.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/115835_36.htm#_edn11


22/57

for special penal laws cases

Documents