G.R. No. 76338-39 - People vs. Tac-an y Hipos

Qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition (Criminal Case No. 4007) under Section 1, paragraph (2), of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Murder (Criminal Case No. 4012) of Francis Ernest Escano III, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 17 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 179.

Both cases consolidated and tried together by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City.

Renato Tac-an, 18 years old at the time.
Francis Ernest Escano III, 15 years old, classmate and former friend of appellant.

Both were classmates and members of the same gang, the Bronx gang.
Relations soured after quarrels and alleged graffiti attacks by Francis on Renato and the gang.
Francis withdrew from the gang on advice from his mother who noticed Renato with a handgun on prior visits.

Renato attends English III class; finds Francis sitting on his scrapbook, resulting in a brief confrontation averted by teachers.
Renato leaves classroom, returns about 15 minutes later with a loaded .38 caliber revolver.
Renato bursts into the Mathematics class and fires at Francis multiple times:

Renato exits room briefly, then re-enters and fires a final shot at Francis’ chest while he lay helpless on the floor.
Renato leaves and locks Francis inside the classroom.
Teachers and students later rescue Francis, but he dies before reaching hospital.

Renato holds hostage teachers and students in faculty room, but later surrenders the firearm to his brother and is arrested by Philippine Constabulary soldiers.
The revolver matched ballistic evidence linking it to fired shells found at crime scene.
Renato claims to have acted in self-defense or incomplete self-defense.
Prosecution alleged Renato acted under influence of marijuana, although medical evidence is lacking.
Trial court convicted Renato with death penalty for both qualified illegal possession of firearms and murder.

Disbelief of appellant’s version in favor of prosecution’s.
Justification of shooting based on self-defense or incomplete self-defense.
Inapplicability of PD 1866 post martial law.
Double jeopardy alleged for multiple prosecutions.
Alleged absence of treachery and evident premeditation.
Questioning qualification of aggravating circumstances including influence of dangerous drugs and insult to persons in authority.
Claim of voluntary surrender.

Whether Renato Tac-an acted in lawful self-defense or incomplete self-defense.
Whether Presidential Decree No. 1866 continued to be applicable after the lifting of martial law.
Whether double jeopardy occurred due to prosecution under both PD 1866 and for murder involving use of unlicensed firearm.
Whether treachery was present in the killing to qualify it as murder.
Whether evident premeditation existed as an aggravating circumstance.
Whether Renato was under the influence of dangerous drugs at the time of the killing.
Whether the appellant voluntarily surrendered and thus merits mitigation.
Whether the killing was committed in contempt of or with insult to persons in authority for purposes of aggravation under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.