Case Digest (G.R. No. 112092)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Robert Nunez y Lagasca, G.R. No. 112092, March 01, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged appellant Robert Nunez (accused-appellant) with four separate crimes arising from a shooting on March 6, 1992, in Palina Sur, Urdaneta, Pangasinan: one Information for homicide, two for frustrated homicide, and one for illegal possession of firearms (Criminal Case No. U-6449). The shooting occurred when four persons riding a tricycle passed appellant’s family compound and were fired upon; one, Calixto Pacorza, died, and others were wounded. Victim Teofilo Pacquing reported the incident to police.
Responding PNP officers investigated; SPO1 Ernesto C. Gancena testified that appellant admitted shooting Pacorza. SPO1 Henry R. Kang recovered a .22 long rifle (Squibman model 116 MK, serial A-320554) from appellant but appellant could not produce a permit. Appellant was brought to the Urdaneta Police Station and refused to give a statement; the incident was recorded in the blotter.
Only the illegal-possession Information is before the Court. Appellant, arraigned September 10, 1992, pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented police witnesses (including the investigators who claimed the firearm was recovered from or surrendered by appellant) and victim Pacquing who identified appellant as the shooter. The defense presented appellant’s account (claiming self-defense and that the firearm was transiently obtained during a scuffle), and witnesses including Cesar Celeste who claimed ownership of the rifle and that a temporary license issued to him had lapsed. The defense also sought consolidation of the four cases, which the trial court denied.
On May 26, 1993, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Urdaneta, convicted appellant of "illegal possession of firearm resulting to the death of the victim," sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered costs. Appellant appealed, assigning errors including alleged inconsistent prosecution testimony as to recovery of the firearm, improper weighing of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in admitting appellant’s alleged extrajudicial confession and the firearm into evidence (evidentiary/admissibility issue)?
- Did the trial court improperly shift the burden of proof to appellant after he raised self-defense (procedural/burden issue)?
- Did the trial court err in assessing the credibility of witnesses and giving weight to the prosecution’s testimony despite asserted inconsistencies (credibility/appellate-deference issue)?
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of illegal possession of firearms, and if so, should the conviction be for the aggravated or simple form given intervening...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)