Case Digest (G.R. No. 123137)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. PO2 Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos, G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The appeal arose from Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-30350 (murder) and CBU-33664 (illegal possession of firearms) tried before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, which on May 17, 1995 convicted appellants PO2 Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos of murder and unlawful possession of firearms and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua and an indeterminate term for the firearms charge; co-accused P/Chief Inspector Gaudioso Navales was acquitted in the criminal case but later administratively dismissed for grave misconduct. The RTC also ordered indemnity, actual damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, and directed forfeiture of the firearms.
The information alleged that on June 5, 1993, at about 11:50 P.M., the accused, armed and acting in conspiracy, shot and killed Alejandro Flores. The prosecution’s evidence included eyewitness testimony of Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., who observed a tall, thin gunman alight from a red “Jiffy,” fire on a prostrate victim, and flee; testimony of pursuing police who intercepted the same red “Jiffy” near the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center (BBRC); seizure of a .38 revolver from Abriol and two .45 pistols from under the front seat of the vehicle; ballistics reports matching recovered slugs and cartridge cases to those firearms; paraffin (gunpowder residue) tests on the appellants’ hands and firearms; and medico-legal evidence that the victim died of multiple gunshot wounds.
The defense denied participation, claimed inability of the eyewitness to identify the assailants in court, attacked the reliability of paraffin and ballistics evidence, and contended that Abriol had a Memorandum Receipt (MR) for the .38 service revolver and that the .45s might have been planted or belonged to BBRC personnel. The RTC rejected the defenses, credited the prosecution’s circumstantial and expert evidence, found treachery proved but not evident premeditation, and convicted the three appellants of murder and illegal possession of firearms.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court on a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution’s evidence—largely circumstantial—sufficient to convict appellants of murder beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the warrantless seizures and other evidence sufficient to convict appellants of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866?
- Should R.A. No. 8294 (as interpreted in People v. Molina) be applied to treat use of an unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstanc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)