Case Summary (G.R. No. 188315)
Charge and Indictment
Carpio and Gabelino were charged with illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254, RPC, alleged to have occurred on or about 28 February 2007 in Davao City, where Carpio, without intent to kill and in purported conspiracy with Gabelino, armed herself and fired at Rebecca Vencio‑Clarion, to the latter’s prejudice and consequential damages.
Factual background of the incident
The prosecution’s factual narrative is that Carpio and Clarion were neighbors; Carpio uttered demeaning words to Clarion’s mother, was confronted by Clarion, then went to Gabelino’s house to get a gun. Gabelino allegedly urged her to shoot Clarion. Carpio allegedly fired at Clarion, missed, and attempted to fire again but failed; people intervened and the accused fled toward Gabelino’s house. Fuentes, a nearby resident, testified she heard the shot, ran to Clarion’s house, and saw Carpio pointing a gun at Clarion, who was on the ground.
Prosecution evidence and witness testimony
Key witnesses for the prosecution were Clarion and Fuentes. Fuentes testified she heard a gunburst, ran (estimates ranged to about five minutes) from her house—approximately 200 meters away—and upon arrival saw Carpio pointing a gun at Clarion from about 3.5 meters away. Fuentes explained that people had fled and that she remained because of concern for her grandchild. The prosecution relied on these eyewitness identifications to establish that Carpio discharged a firearm against Clarion.
Defense evidence and alibi
Carpio denied owning or knowing how to use a gun, claiming she was at the public market tending her mother’s stall and later went to her mother’s house for dinner, reaching home around 10:00 p.m. Leticia Las corroborated that Carpio was seen at the market. Gabelino testified differently, claiming she was awakened by noise, saw Clarion and her sons throwing stones, and was brought by police to the station where they were advised to file charges—portraying a different sequence and implying no conspiracy to shoot.
MTCC ruling
The Metropolitan Trial Court in its decision dated 15 September 2009 convicted both Carpio and Gabelino for illegal discharge of firearm and imposed the penalty of arresto mayor (minimum) to prision correccional (maximum). The MTCC preferred Fuentes’s testimony and discounted Las’s testimony, reasoning Las could have been distracted while preparing to close her stall.
RTC ruling on appeal
The Regional Trial Court affirmed Carpio’s conviction but acquitted Gabelino for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC’s factual findings supported the MTCC’s credibility determinations regarding eyewitness testimony.
Court of Appeals ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto, finding the prosecution had established the elements of illegal discharge of firearm. The CA gave weight to Fuentes’s corroboration of Clarion’s account, rejected the alibi because the market and mother’s house were within the vicinity of the locus delicti, and found inconsistencies raised by the defense to be collateral, not undermining the core identification and finding that Carpio fired at Clarion.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The sole legal issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Carpio’s conviction for illegal discharge of firearm, taking into account alleged testimonial inconsistencies and the claimed alibi.
Supreme Court ruling and standard of review
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the CA and RTC factual findings. The Court reiterated the well‑settled rule that trial court findings on credibility are given great weight when affirmed by the appellate court because the trial court had the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The Court noted recognized exceptions permitting review of factual findings but found none applicable here (e.g., findings grounded in mere conjecture, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or conclusions unsupported by citation of evidence).
Elements of the offense and application to the facts
Under Article 254, illegal discharge of firearm consists of (1) the offender discharging a firearm against or at another person, and (2) the absence of intent to kill. The Court concluded that Clarion and Fuentes sufficiently established that Carpio fired her gun at Clarion, satisfying the first element. The second element was likewise satisfied because no intent to kill was alleged or proven; the prosecution charged the act as discharge without intent to kill.
Credibility assessment of Fuentes’s testimony
The Court analyzed and accepted Fuentes’s testimony despite her approximate estimate of the time to reach Clarion’s house. The Court found her statements internally consistent: distance (about 200 meters), her immediate reaction upon hearing the shot, her position relative to Carpio and Clarion (behind Carpio, about 3.5 meters away), and her motive for not fleeing (protecting her grandchild). The Court held that the inability to state an exact transit time did not diminish the reliability of her identification and observations.
Treatment of alleged inconsistencies and alibi defense
The Court characterized alleged discrepancies—number of shots fired, whether Clarion fell immediately, whether Gabelino hid or was taken to police—as co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188315)
Case Title, Citation and Date
- FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 211691, April 28, 2021.
- Case caption as provided: "LETLET CARPIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT."
- Decision authored by Justice Zalameda; judgment denies the petition for lack of merit and affirms the Court of Appeals decision dated 19 August 2013 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00891.
Nature of the Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- Criminal prosecution for illegal discharge of firearm even in the absence of casualty or intent to kill; the existence of bullet holes or damage is not essential to prosecute or convict.
Antecedent Facts and Criminal Charge
- Date of alleged offense: on or about 28 February 2007, in Davao City, Philippines.
- Accused: Letlet Carpio a.k.a. Mary Rose L. Carpio, with co-accused Abadieza Gabelino (also referred to in records as Abadieza Gabelinio).
- Allegation: Petitioner, without intent to kill, armed with a firearm, and in conspiracy with Gabelino’s instructions, willfully and feloniously aimed the firearm at and shot private complainant Rebecca Vencio-Clarion, to her prejudice and causing consequential damages, contrary to law.
- Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment and posted bail.
Evidence for the Prosecution
- Neighbors: Petitioner, Clarion, and Gabelino were neighbors in Batulos, Bangkas Heights, Toril, Davao City.
- Sequence of events (prosecution version):
- Petitioner passed by Clarion’s house and uttered demeaning words against Clarion’s mother, who was tending her store.
- On a subsequent pass, Clarion confronted petitioner.
- Petitioner, enraged, went to Gabelino’s house to get a gun.
- Gabelino urged petitioner to shoot Clarion, allegedly saying, "Barila, Barila" (Shoot her, shoot her).
- Petitioner fired the gun but missed Clarion; Clarion immediately dropped to the ground.
- Petitioner attempted to fire again but failed.
- Bystanders intervened; petitioner and Gabelino fled toward Gabelino’s house.
- Testimony of Estrella Fuentes (prosecution witness):
- Her grandchild was playing near Clarion’s house when she heard the gunshot.
- She ran to Clarion’s house and saw petitioner pointing a gun at Clarion, who was on the ground.
- She returned to her house and called 911.
- In-court testimony excerpt:
- Distance between Fuentes’ house and Clarion’s house was stipulated by counsels to be 200 meters.
- Fuentes estimated her run to the Clarion house as "less than" ten minutes and affirmed "five minutes" when asked.
- Fuentes placed herself 3.5 meters away when she saw petitioner pointing a gun at Clarion.
- Fuentes testified she was behind Letlet and that Letlet did not see her.
- Fuentes candidly explained she was not afraid for herself because she was thinking of her grandchild who might be shot.
- Corroboration: The prosecution relied on Fuentes’ testimony to corroborate Clarion’s account that petitioner fired her gun at Clarion.
Evidence for the Defense
- Defense witnesses: Petitioner, Gabelino, and Leticia Las.
- Petitioner’s claim:
- Denied ownership of, or knowledge in using, a gun.
- Claimed she was tending to her mother’s stall at the public market during the time of the incident.
- Said she went to her mother’s house after closing at around 9:00 p.m., remitted income and had dinner, and arrived home by 10:00 p.m.
- Leticia Las’ testimony:
- Corroborated that petitioner was at the market tending her stall and that petitioner went to her mother’s house to have dinner.
- Gabelino’s testimony:
- Claimed she was roused from sleep by a loud noise and saw Clarion and her sons throwing stones at her roof.
- Said the police came and brought both her and Clarion to the police station where the police suggested she file charges against Clarion.
- Defense theories advanced at trial included denial and alibi.
Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
- MTCC Decision dated 15 September 2009 found petitioner and Gabelino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal discharge of firearm.
- Sentenced both to the indeterminate penalty of three (3) months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the costs.
- MTCC credited Fuentes’ testimony over the defense witness Las; reasoned Las could have been distracted while tending and closing her stall.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- RTC affirmed petitioner’s conviction.
- RTC acquitted Gabelino due to prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- RTC’s findings as affirmed by the CA supported the MTCC’s credibility assessments.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)
- CA affirmed the RTC in toto