Facts:

The case involves Fidel V. Amarillo, Jr. as the petitioner against the People of the Philippines and Raul Hermo as the respondents. The events leading to the case transpired on September 3, 1994, at the Amihan Hotel and Restaurant located in Baler, Aurora, Philippines. On that night, Raul Hermo and his companions were celebrating a birthday when a dispute arose over the direction of a fan. Amarillo, who was with his own group, redirected the fan towards his table, leading to a confrontation. During this altercation, Amarillo shot Hermo in the forehead with a .38 caliber revolver, causing serious injuries.

Following the incident, two separate informations were filed against Amarillo: Criminal Case No. 1932 for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, and Criminal Case No. 1933 for frustrated homicide. Amarillo pleaded not guilty to both charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora, found him guilty of both charges, sente...

Facts:

Background and Charges

• On November 15, 1994, two separate criminal cases were filed against petitioner Fidel V. Amarillo, Jr.:
  1. Criminal Case No. 1932: Illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
  2. Criminal Case No. 1933: Frustrated homicide for shooting Raul Hermo in the forehead.

Incident Details

• On September 3, 1994, Raul Hermo and his group went to the Amihan Disco and Restaurant to celebrate a birthday. Amarillo and his group were also present.
• A dispute arose over the use of a stand fan. Amarillo redirected the fan towards his group, leading to a verbal altercation.
• Amarillo allegedly shifted a gun from his left to his right waist, and without warning, shot Hermo in the forehead.
• Hermo’s group wrestled the gun from Amarillo, and Hermo was rushed to the hospital, surviving due to timely medical intervention.

Defense Version

• Amarillo claimed that Hermo’s group took the fan and directed it towards them. When he tried to adjust it, Ramirez threw peanuts at him.
• He alleged that Soriano pointed a gun at him, and during a struggle, the gun accidentally fired. Amarillo was then struck unconscious and only regained consciousness in a police vehicle.

Trial Court Decision

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Amarillo of both charges:
  1. Illegal Possession of Firearm: Sentenced to 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months.
  2. Frustrated Homicide: Sentenced to 4 years and 2 months to 8 years, with civil indemnity of P338,317.45.

Court of Appeals Decision

• The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision:
  1. Illegal Possession of Firearm: Acquitted Amarillo, ruling that the use of an unlicensed firearm should only be an aggravating circumstance in the frustrated homicide case.
  2. Frustrated Homicide: Upheld the conviction but adjusted the penalty to 8 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 9 years and 4 months.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Judicial Disqualification: A judge is not automatically disqualified from hearing a case merely because they acted as counsel de oficio during arraignment. Compulsory disqualification applies only if the judge had substantial prior involvement as counsel.
2. Credibility of Witnesses: The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to great respect. Minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not undermine the overall credibility of witnesses, especially when they corroborate essential facts.
3. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Positive identification by credible witnesses, coupled with the absence of improper motive, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Amarillo’s denial cannot prevail over such evidence.
4. Erroneous Application of Law: While the trial judge erred in treating illegal possession of a firearm as a separate crime instead of an aggravating circumstance, this error did not affect the validity of the frustrated homicide conviction.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision and denied Amarillo’s petition. The conviction for frustrated homicide was upheld, and the acquittal for illegal possession of a firearm was affirmed.