G.R. No. 143951 - Mangaliag vs. Catubig-Pastoral

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143951)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Overview of the Case

The case involves two criminal cases:

Criminal Case No. Q-94-58986 for murder.
Criminal Case No. Q-94-58985 for the violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.

The accused-appellant, Constancio Candido y Collarga, was charged with both crimes, which included allegations of treacherous murder and illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm.
The decision of conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 220, Quezon City, dated June 22, 1998, was rendered against Candido y Collarga.

Facts Pertaining to the Murder Charge

Incident Details

On October 9, 1994, in Quezon City, the accused was alleged to have committed murder by shooting Nelson Daras y Pueblo.
The shooting was characterized by treachery – the accused positioned himself behind the victim and fired without warning.
The assassination was carried out with evident premeditation, as the accused closed a stall at a peryahan and subsequently engaged the victim.

Witness Testimonies and Evidence

Eyewitness accounts:

Perlita Baldoza testified that she saw the accused alighting from a taxi and approaching the victim from behind, then firing a shot at the lower portion of the victim’s chest, causing him to fall.

ii. Ruben Aliaga corroborated by stating that he observed the accused with a gun who fired three times and later assisted in transporting the victim to the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.

Law enforcement evidence:

SPO1 Wilfredo Red and SPO1 Gil J. Gregorio provided accounts of spotting the accused fleeing the scene, with Red later subduing him after a chase.

ii. The confiscated firearm, a homemade .38 caliber revolver, was identified by SPO1 Red, who confirmed that it was unlicensed.

Medico-Legal Findings

Dr. Bienvenido O. MuAoz performed the autopsy which revealed two fatal gunshot wounds – one on the front of the victim’s chest and another on his back.

ii. The trajectory and characteristics of the wounds indicated deliberate and targeted gunfire rather than incidental or accidental discharge.

Facts Pertaining to the Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm)

The accused was found in possession of a homemade .38 caliber revolver, unregistered and unlicensed, with three live and three spent rounds.
Documentary evidence, including a certification from the Firearms and Explosive Office, confirmed that the accused did not possess a proper license or permit for the firearm.
Although the prosecution established the violation, the legal question arose whether this offense should be independently penalized or treated as an aggravating circumstance in the murder charge, as amended under RA 8294.

The Accused’s Version and Defense Arguments

During arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges but eventually admitted to killing the victim, asserting that his actions were in self-defense.
In his testimony, he claimed that:

A dispute arose after he closed a stall at the peryahan.
The victim approached him aggressively, initiating a physical confrontation.
In the ensuing struggle for the victim’s gun, the firearm inadvertently discharged a first shot, followed by two additional discharges as the struggle continued.

The accused’s narrative was uncorroborated, with no independent witnesses supporting his self-defense claim.
Multiple witnesses, including Baldoza and Aliaga, provided testimonies that directly contradicted his version of events.

Evidence on the Qualifying Circumstance of Treachery

The prosecution argued that treachery was evident in the manner of the attack:

The accused's sudden, unprovoked positioning behind the victim.
The immediate and successive shots fired once the victim was incapacitated.

The physical and autopsy evidence (weapon discharge characteristics, absence of close-range markers like smudging, multiple gunshot wounds) further reinforced the element of treachery, undermining the self-defense claim.

Procedural Posturing and Subsequent Court Actions

The decision rendered by the RTC ordered the accused’s transfer to the National Penitentiary pending appeal.
The case was subjected to automatic review by the Supreme Court, which later modified the trial court’s decision on the nature of the penalties imposed.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder when the evidence might support a claim of self-defense.

The burden of proof regarding self-defense was on the accused, requiring him to demonstrate unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and absence of provocation.
The credibility of the accused’s version vis-à-vis the independent, consistent testimonies of key eyewitnesses was at issue.

Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated despite contention that the prosecution did not adequately establish the element of treachery.

The determination of treachery hinged on whether the attack was sudden and unanticipated, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend himself.

Whether the trial court erred in treating the crime of illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm as a separate offense rather than as an aggravating circumstance under the amended provisions of RA 8294.

The proper application of RA 8294 mandates that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder should be considered a special aggravating circumstance, avoiding double jeopardy for the same act.

Whether the physical evidence and autopsy findings sufficiently negated the claimant’s assertion of self-defense.

The multiple gunshot wounds, their locations, and the absence of injuries typical of close-range defensive fire were central to evaluating the self-defense claim.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143951) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143951) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143951)
Concise

Case Digest (G.R. No. 143951)
Standard Advanced