Case Digest (G.R. No. 76338-39)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Renato Tac‑an y Hipos, G.R. Nos. 76338-39, February 26, 1990, Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court. The appeal arose from convictions by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City for (a) qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition (Criminal Case No. 4007) under Presidential Decree No. 1866 and (b) murder (Criminal Case No. 4012) under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, with the trial court imposing the penalty of death in both cases.Appellant Renato Tac‑an, then 18 years old, and the victim Francis Ernest Escano III, 15, were classmates and former friends. A series of quarrels culminated on 14 December 1984 when Renato left class, returned with an unlicensed Smith & Wesson .38 revolver (Serial No. 359323) and burst into Room 15 during a mathematics class. He fired repeatedly; Francis was struck by a head wound and later by a chest wound after Renato re‑entered the room and shot him while he lay bleeding. Renato left the room, locked Francis inside, then entered the faculty room where, after a standoff with Philippine Constabulary (PC) troopers, he handed the revolver to his brother and was arrested. Ballistic testing linked the spent cartridges to the recovered revolver.
The prosecution filed separate informations: Criminal Case No. 4007 for unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm (with allegation the firearm was used to kill) under P.D. No. 1866, Sec. 1, and Criminal Case No. 4012 (amended) for murder with qualifying circumstances including evident premeditation, treachery, acting under the influence of drugs (per B.P. Blg. 179, Sec. 17), cruelty, and use of an unlicensed firearm. The RTC consolidated the cases, found appellant guilty as charged and imposed the death penalty in both cases (decision promulgated 31 July 1986), and ordered civil damages. Appellant signified his intention to appeal; because the penalty imposed included death, the case was subject to the Supreme Court’s automatic review.
On appeal the appellant raised multiple assignments of error: that the trial court credited the prosecution’s version over his, that he acted in (complete or incomplete) self‑defense, that P.D. No. 1866 had lapsed with the end of martial law, that double jeopardy resulted from successive charges, that treachery and evident premeditation were not proven, that the claim he acted while under the influence o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the claim of self‑defense (or incomplete self‑defense) established by appellant?
- Is P.D. No. 1866 inapplicable because it was promulgated during martial law and lapsed with the end of that regime?
- Did the prosecution subject appellant to double jeopardy by charging both unlawful possession under P.D. No. 1866 and murder under the Revised Penal Code?
- Were treachery and evident premeditation properly found and used to qualify/augment the murder conviction and sentence?
- Was there sufficient proof that appellant acted while under the influence of dangerous drugs (a special aggravating circumstance)?
- Was appellant’s handing over of his gun and his subsequent arrest equivalent to a voluntary surrender mitigating circumstance?
- Was the trial court correct in treating the killing as committed in contempt of or w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)