Case Digest (G.R. No. 89823)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eutropio Tiozon y Acid, G.R. No. 89823. June 19, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On 27 February 1989 an information was filed in Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court (Caloocan City) charging Eutropio Tiozon y Acid with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, Sec. 1, alleging possession of a .38 caliber revolver and that the firearm "was used with treachery and evident premeditation" in the shooting of Leonardo Bolima which caused his death. The accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment on 15 March 1989; pre-trial followed and both parties presented evidence at trial.
The trial court found the accused guilty on 30 June 1989 of P.D. 1866 with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced him to life imprisonment (noting that, had it not been abolished, the death penalty would have been imposed), ordered indemnity of P30,000 and reimbursement of P50,000 for burial expenses. The accused's motion for reconsideration (filed 5 July 1989) was denied on 16 August 1989; a Notice of Appeal was filed 17 August 1989, bringing the case to this Court.
At trial the prosecution presented testimony of the victim's wife who recounted that the accused, apparently drunk, had come to their house, sat and showed a gun to her husband, and shortly thereafter two shots were heard; the accused then knocked and told her he had accidentally shot her husband. Police witnesses testified they found the accused with bloodstained clothing, recovered the revolver and spent shells (ballistics linked the shells to the recovered gun), and an NBI forensic chemist's paraffin tests for nitrates on both the victim and accused were negative. The accused testified he and the victim had been drinking, that the victim was carrying a gun which the accused handled briefly and later returned, denied seeing the actual shooting, admitted helping police retrieve the gun (which he said he threw away for fear of being seen holding it), and denied ever telling the victim's wife he accidentally shot the victim.
The trial court convicted on circumstantial evidence, enumerating as salient circumstances: (1) the widow saw the accused with a gun just before the shooting; (2) the accused was the last person seen with the victim; (3) the accused visited the victim that night; (4) the accused guided police to where the gun was recovered (suggesting he hid it); (5) the accused allegedly told...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution prove the essential element of illegal possession under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 (i.e., lack of license to possess the firearm)?
- Were the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation established a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)