Case Digest (G.R. No. 210710)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Luisito Gaborne y Cinco, G.R. No. 210710, July 27, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged appellant Luisito Gaborne y Cinco (accused‑appellant) together with two others, Noli Abayan and Joselito Bardelas, in two Informations: one for Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm (Crim. Case No. CC‑2007‑1640) and one for Frustrated Murder (Crim. Case No. CC‑2007‑1650), both arising from shooting(s) at a videoke bar in Barangay Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar on the night of 2 February 2007. The Informations alleged that the accused, conspiring and with treachery and premeditation, shot and killed Sixto Elizan y Herrera and shot Rey Perfecto C. De Luna, inflicting wounds that would have caused death but for timely medical intervention; the use of an unlicensed .45 caliber pistol was alleged as an aggravating circumstance.
On arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges and trial ensued. The People’s evidence included eyewitness testimony from Marialinisa Pasana and the surviving victim De Luna, who identified appellant as the person holding and firing the gun; both victims were hit from behind by gunshots fired through a window. Elizan was dead on arrival at the hospital; De Luna survived after surgery. Appellant contended denial and alibi, claiming someone else in camouflage fired shots and that the waitress had threatened them; paraffin tests performed on appellant and Bardelas the day after the incident were negative. Appellant was arrested the day after the shooting.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar, in a joint judgment dated 12 March 2010 convicted appellant of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm (sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages to Elizan’s heirs) and of Frustrated Murder (sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor to reclusion temporal and ordered to pay damages to De Luna). Co‑accused Abayan and Bardelas were acquitted. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 01183, affirmed the RTC’s conviction on 29 July 2013 but modified the awards of damages and ordered interest at six percent.
Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by giving Notice of Appeal and elevating the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant foreclosed from assailing the legality of his arrest when he first raised the issue on appeal?
- Were the elements of Murder (with treachery) and Frustrated Murder proven beyond reasonable doubt?
- Could the negative paraffin test and appellant’s denial/alibi outweigh the eyewitness identifications?
- Was the use of an unlicensed firearm established as an aggravating circumstance despite the firearm not being produced?
- Were the awards of civil, moral and exem...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)