Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27680-81)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Openiano Pajenado @ Peming, G.R. No. L-27680-81, February 27, 1970, the Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the defendant-appellant is Openiano Pajenado (alias Peming). Pajenado was tried in the Court of First Instance of Samar on two informations: Criminal Case No. 3492 (murder; now G.R. No. L-27680) and Criminal Case No. 3558 (illegal possession of a firearm; now G.R. No. L-27681). He pleaded not guilty in both cases and was tried jointly.
The trial court found the following facts proven by the prosecution witnesses: at about noon on December 31, 1965 in barrio Dapdap, Las Navas, North Samar, Pajenado met the deceased, Carlos Tapong, seized him by the neck and, with the assistance of his cousin Carlito, wrestled and threw Tapong to the ground. While Tapong was pinned, Pajenado allegedly drew a .45 caliber pistol and fired; the victim was mortally wounded and later died. Witness Pelagia Tapong corroborated that Pajenado had been standing on the street, met and seized Carlos by the neck, and with Carlito’s help felled him. Police took the firearm from Pajenado at the scene. Dr. Angel Tan performed a post-mortem on January 1, 1966 and reported three gunshot wounds consistent with a single .45 shot, presence of powder burns indicating a firing distance under one meter, and death from shock due to external and internal hemorrhage.
The trial court convicted Pajenado of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Carlos Tapong in the amount of P6,000 and imposed costs; it also found him guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and sentenced him to imprisonment of one to five years and costs. The case was appealed to this Court; the Solicitor General urg...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the conviction for murder proper, or should the appellant have been convicted only of homicide?
- Was the appellant properly convicted of illegal possession of a ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)