Case Summary (G.R. No. 221075)
Facts of the Case
At approximately 6:40 PM on July 17, 1988, Fiscal Lino Mayo was shot in the head with a .45 caliber firearm at the Victory Liner Terminal Compound in Caloocan City. The accused, Elias Barasina, was charged with two crimes: illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. 1866 and murder. Eyewitnesses including security guards, barangay officials, and residents of the terminal witnessed the shooting and the immediate aftermath. The accused fled the scene but was apprehended near the LRT Station in Caloocan with the .45 caliber pistol in his possession.
Evidence Presented
- Eyewitness Testimony: Multiple witnesses identified Elias Barasina as the gunman who shot Fiscal Mayo. Rufino Alvarez observed Barasina holding the gun and fleeing after the shooting. Security guard Felipe Hamtig and several other witnesses corroborated the identification and circumstance of the shooting.
- Ballistics: The NBI ballistician confirmed the bullet recovered from the victim was fired from the .45 caliber pistol confiscated from the accused.
- Paraffin Test: Gunpowder residue was found on both hands of the accused, indicating he recently fired a firearm.
- Autopsy Report: Conducted by Dr. Bienvinido Munoz, confirmed that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head consistent with the witness accounts.
- Illegality of Possession: The accused was certified as having no license to possess firearms at the time of the incident.
- Statements of the Accused: The accused initially refused to enter a plea; later gave a signed extrajudicial confession assisted by a lawyer appointed by the authorities.
- Defense Version: The accused claimed he found the gun dropped by another person, fired a warning shot while trying to return it, and was mistakenly accused.
Procedural History
- The trial court found Elias Barasina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a firearm and murder.
- Sentences were initially imposed as follows: 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years reclusion temporal for illegal possession of firearm; 10 years and 1 day to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor for murder.
- The Court of Appeals modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for both crimes and increased the civil indemnity to the victim's widow.
- Appeals challenged (1) validity of the extrajudicial confession due to lack of counsel of his own choice, and (2) sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Issues
- Whether the extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given and whether the assistance of counsel complied with constitutional requirements under Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder and illegal possession of firearms.
- Whether double jeopardy arises from convictions for both murder and illegal possession of a firearm under PD 1866.
- Whether the incomplete cross-examination of a prosecution witness violated the accused’s right to confront witnesses.
Analysis of Legal Issues
Extrajudicial Confession and Right to Counsel
Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to be informed of one’s right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of one’s own choice. The accused argued he was denied a lawyer of his own choosing as counsel Abelardo Torres was appointed by police authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to a lawyer “preferably of his own choice” does not preclude the presence of competent and independent counsel otherwise provided. There was no showing the accused requested a specific counsel nor resisted the assistance of Atty. Torres. The defense counsel hired after the custodial investigation was considered an afterthought and did not affect the validity of the confession. Thus, the extrajudicial confession was properly admitted in evidence.
Sufficiency of Evidence
Eyewitnesses positively identified the accused as the shooter. The forensic evidence—ballistics and gunpowder residue tests—corroborated the testimonies. The autopsy confirmed the fatal injury was consistent with the use of the confiscated firearm. The accused’s story of picking up a dropped gun and firing a warning shot was contradicted by witness testimony denying any bumping incident near the LRT station. The Court held that the positive and categorical testimonies of witnesses outweighed the accused’s denial, satisfying the prosecution’s burden beyond reasonable doubt.
Double Jeopardy
The accused contended that prosecution for both murder and illegal possession of firearm arising from a single act violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under P.D. 1866, which mandates death if unlicensed firearms are used in homicide. The Court cited earlier jurisprudence (Tangan vs. People) to clarify that double jeopardy attaches only after conviction or acquittal. Filing of separate charges does not constitute double jeopardy because the cases had not yet been terminated, and both offenses carry different elements and penalties. Therefore, the separate convictions and sentences were valid.
Incomplete Cross-Examination of Witness
The accused sought to strike out the testimony of security guard Felipe Hamtig because cross-examination was incomplete due to the witness's absence at resumption. The Court examined whether the accused’s right to confront witnesses was violated. It was found that extensive cross-examination on material p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221075)
Facts of the Case
- On July 17, 1988, at approximately 6:40 p.m., Fiscal Lino Mayo was shot in the left side of his face with a .45 caliber firearm at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound in Caloocan City.
- The accused, Elias Barasina y Layneza, was charged with two offenses: illegal possession of a firearm (violation of P.D. 1866) and murder.
- The prosecution alleged that the accused unlawfully possessed an unlicensed Colt .45 caliber pistol and used it to fatally shoot Fiscal Mayo.
- Eyewitnesses at the scene, including Rufino Alvarez, Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos, security guard Felipe Hamtig, and porters Ruel Ganiola and Michael Estapia, saw the accused firing the weapon and fleeing the scene.
- The firearm and live ammunition were recovered from the accused by Police Officer Pfc. Napoleon Francia near the LRT Station in Caloocan City.
- An autopsy performed by Dr. Bienvenido Munoz established the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the head, confirming the bullet trajectory and related injuries consistent with the shooting.
- Paraffin tests conducted by NBI forensic chemists revealed gunpowder residues on the accused’s hands.
- Ballistics examination confirmed that the bullet retrieved from the victim was fired from the seized firearm.
Investigation and Custodial Proceedings
- Police investigations were conducted by Pfc. Arsenio Nacis and others, which included the seizure of the firearm and the detention of the accused.
- The accused was informed of his constitutional rights and was assisted by Atty. Abelardo Torres during the custodial investigation.
- Despite the accused’s claim that he was maltreated and forced to sign documents, testimonies from the investigator and counsel contradicted this.
- The accused executed a statement during the investigation which was introduced as evidence.
- The accused initially refused to sign the statement before the Inquest Fiscal, rendering it unsworn; however, it was still considered in the proceedings.
- Accused invoked a defense claiming he picked up the revolver dropped by a stranger who bumped into him and fired a warning shot while trying to return it.
Issues Raised on Appeal
- The accused-appellant contended two main errors:
- The trial court erred in admitting the extrajudicial confession allegedly taken without competent, independent counsel of his own choice, violating Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
- The judgment was against the weight of evidence and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reaso