Case Digest (G.R. No. 82264-66)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Isagani Gulinao y Alzona, G.R. Nos. 82264-66, December 04, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.In three separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Isagani Gulinao (accused-appellant) was charged in: (1) Crim. Case No. 8016‑V‑87 for illegal possession of firearm with murder (alleging he used an unlicensed .45 pistol to kill Samson Chua on March 4, 1987); (2) Crim. Case No. 8017‑V‑87 for robbery (alleging he took Chua’s gold ring worth P85,000 by violence upon the person); and (3) Crim. Case No. 8048‑V‑87 for carnapping (alleging he shot and killed the person entrusted with the vehicle and unlawfully took the Toyota Corona). Gulinao pleaded not guilty to robbery and carnapping but refused to enter a plea on the illegal-possession-with-murder information, so the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him pursuant to Rule 116, Sec. 1(c), Rules of Court.
Gulinao moved to quash the illegal-possession information on double jeopardy grounds, asserting a pending case (Crim. Case No. 87‑52928) for illegal possession before the RTC Manila involving the same firearm; the trial court denied the motion (Order dated April 24, 1987). Gulinao filed a petition for certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 12412) in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on September 22, 1987, finding no double jeopardy because the Manila case involved a March 5, 1987 incident and the Valenzuela case involved March 4, 1987, different places, and different facts.
The three cases were jointly tried in RTC Valenzuela. After the prosecution rested, the court set dates for defense evidence starting October 28, 1987. Gulinao repeatedly refused to testify or present evidence and declined interviews with court‑appointed counsel; his retained counsel for two of the cases withdrew with his conformity. The trial court warned that failure to present evidence without valid grounds would be deemed a waiver. After several adjournments and further refusal by Gulinao, the trial court treated the failure as waiver and, on November 23, 1987, found him guilty on all three charges and imposed the penalties stated in the trial court’s dispositive portion, including an indemnity of P500,000 to the heirs of Dr. Chua.
Gulinao appealed to this Court, assigning as errors: (I) denial of opportunity to present evidence; (II) conviction for illegal possession with murder (double jeopardy); (III) conviction for robbery under Art. 294(5) RPC instead of theft; and (IV) conviction for carnapping (lack of intent to gain). The prosecution’s evidence established th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court improperly refuse to allow the accused to present his evidence?
- Does conviction in Crim. Case No. 8016‑V‑87 for illegal possession of firearm with murder violate the prohibition against double jeopardy in view of an earlier pending illegal‑possession case?
- Should the conviction for robbery under Art. 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code stand, or is the proper conviction theft under Art. 308?
- Was the conviction for carnapping support...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)