G.R. No. 109993 - People vs. Barasina y Layneza

On July 17, 1988, at around 6:40 p.m., Fiscal Lino Mayo of Olongapo City was shot in the face with a .45 caliber unlicensed firearm at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound in Caloocan City.
The gunshot caused fatal injuries, with the bullet entering the left jaw and exiting the back of the right ear, fracturing the mandible, first cervical vertebra, and mastoid bone.
Dr. Bienvinido Munoz, NBI Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an autopsy, placing time of death at 6:45 p.m.

Illegal possession of a .45 cal. pistol-type firearm without a license, in violation of P.D. 1866.
Murder of Fiscal Lino Mayo using the same firearm.

Multiple witnesses including Rufino Alvarez, Felipe Hamtig (security guard), Ruel Ganiola (porter), and Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos sighted the assailant shoot the victim and then flee.
Witnesses identified the assailant as Elias Barasina.
The gunman was seen holding, cocking, and then tucking the .45 cal. pistol before running.
The fleeing gunman was caught near the LRT Station at Monumento, Caloocan City by Pat. Napoleon Francia, who confiscated the firearm.
The area was well-lighted with fluorescent lamps spaced 4-5 meters apart, allowing clear visibility.

Ballistics expert Brandeis Flores confirmed that the bullet retrieved matched the confiscated .45 caliber pistol owned by accused.
Paraffin (gunpowder residue) test on accused’s hands done by NBI forensic chemists revealed positive presence of gunpowder nitrates on both hands, consistent with recent firing.
Police investigation documented the circumstances and took sworn statements from witnesses and accused.
Accused was informed of constitutional rights; he invoked counsel and was assisted by Atty. Abelardo Torres during re-investigation.

Elias Barasina claimed he was chasing a stranger who bumped into him and dropped a gun; he picked up the gun and fired a warning shot in an attempt to return it.
He denied being the assailant and alleged maltreatment by police officers, alleging coercion in signing statements.
Claimed he was not assisted by counsel of his choice during custodial investigation.

Accused initially charged with separate offenses for illegal possession and murder.
Motion to quash on grounds of double jeopardy was denied.
Motion to strike out testimony of security guard Felipe Hamtig for incomplete cross-examination was also denied.
Trial court convicted accused for illegal possession and murder; imposed imprisonment and ordered indemnification for civil damages.
Court of Appeals increased penalties to reclusion perpetua and added civil indemnity.
Accused appealed to the Supreme Court raising two main issues: admissibility of extrajudicial confession (absence of counsel of choice) and sufficiency of evidence.

Whether or not the extrajudicial confession and waiver executed by accused are admissible, particularly considering the accused was assisted by counsel not of his own choice.
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the separate charges for illegal possession of firearm and murder constitute double jeopardy.
Whether the incomplete cross-examination of a key prosecution witness (the security guard) warrants exclusion of his testimony.