Title
People vs. Barasina y Layneza
Case
G.R. No. 109993
Decision Date
Jan 21, 1994
Fiscal Lino Mayo was fatally shot in 1988; witnesses identified Elias Barasina as the shooter. Barasina, found with an unlicensed firearm and gunpowder residue, was convicted of murder and illegal possession, affirmed by the Supreme Court.
murder
illegal possession of firearm
custodial investigation
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109993)

Key Places and Dates

  • Place of incident: Victory Liner Terminal Compound, V.I.P. parking area, Caloocan City (Rizal Avenue Extension/LRT Station area).
  • Date and time of incident: July 17, 1988, about 6:40–6:45 p.m.
  • Trial court conviction: February 28, 1990.
  • Court of Appeals decision (modifying penalty): December 29, 1992.
  • Supreme Court decision date: January 21, 1994.
  • Governing constitutional provision invoked: 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12(1) (right to be informed of rights, to remain silent, and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice).
  • Statute alleged violated: Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession and use of unlicensed firearm); Penal provisions on murder.

Factual Narrative and Immediate Events

Facts Surrounding the Shooting

At about 6:40 p.m. on July 17, 1988, Fiscal Lino Mayo was shot in the face/head in the V.I.P. parking area of the Victory Liner terminal. Multiple witnesses present in the terminal area testified that they heard a gunshot, saw a man fall, and saw another man holding and then running with a .45 caliber pistol. Several bystanders and a police officer pursued the fleeing man; the pursuers and a policeman (Pfc. Napoleon Francia) apprehended a suspect at the LRT station stairway and recovered from him a .45 caliber Colt pistol, serial no. 008645, loaded with four live rounds and one empty shell.

Eyewitness Identification and Immediate Investigation

Eyewitness Identifications, Apprehension, and Evidence Collection

Several eyewitnesses (Rufino Alcaraz, Felipe Hamtig, Ruel Ganiola, Prudencio Motos) identified the fleeing individual, later shown to be Elias Barasina, as the man who fired the shot. The apprehending officer confiscated the pistol from the accused’s right waist. Ballistic comparison by an NBI ballistics examiner (Brandeis Flores) matched the empty shell recovered with test-fired shells from the confiscated .45 pistol, concluding the fatal bullet was fired from that weapon. Forensic paraffin tests on the accused’s hands were positive for gunpowder residue; medico-legal autopsy by Dr. Munoz established the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the head with entry on the left jaw and exit at the back of the right ear.

Charges, Plea, and Defense Version

Criminal Charges, Plea, and Accused’s Explanation

The accused was charged with illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm under P.D. 1866 and with murder. When arraigned he was indifferent to entering a plea and the court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The accused’s declared version was that a stranger bumped him on the street, a gun dropped, he picked it up and attempted to return it to the stranger, and that he fired a warning shot; subsequently police accosted him and took the gun. He also claimed he was maltreated and coerced into signing certain documents and that he did not have counsel of his own choice during custodial procedures; he executed an affidavit of retraction.

Procedural Motions and Evidentiary Challenges

Motion to Quash (Double Jeopardy) and Motion to Strike Witness Testimony

  • Motion to Quash: Defense argued double jeopardy because murder and illegal possession were allegedly the same offense under P.D. 1866 (paragraph 2, section 1). Trial court denied the motion, citing that mere filing of two informations does not trigger double jeopardy and that double jeopardy attaches only after conviction or acquittal or termination without consent (citing Tangan v. People).
  • Motion to strike testimony of Felipe Hamtig: Defense sought expungement because cross-examination was not completed when the witness failed to return. Trial court denied the motion, noting partial cross-examination had occurred, the prosecution was not responsible for the absence, defense did not show how further cross-examination would have altered testimony, and the right to cross-examine is not absolute.

Custodial Assistance, Waiver and Extrajudicial Statement

Custodial Assistance and Voluntariness of Statements

The accused was informed of his constitutional rights in a document prepared by Cpl. Del Rosario (Exhibit "P"), and a written statement (Exhibits "Q", "Q-1", "Q-2") was taken in the presence of Atty. Abelardo Torres, who had been fetched at the direction of Lt. Surara. The accused later contended that Atty. Torres was not his counsel of choice and that he was coerced into signing; trial testimony from the investigator and from Atty. Torres described the circumstances of assistance and preparation of the documents. The trial court found the record belied the claim that Torres was not the accused’s chosen counsel at the time and treated the hiring of another lawyer after the custodial investigation as an afterthought; the Court of Appeals agreed.

Trial Court Findings and Sentencing

Trial Court Verdict and Sentences

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of: (1) Illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. 1866, Paragraph 1, and (2) Murder. Sentences imposed (after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law) were: for illegal possession, 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years reclusion temporal; for murder, 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. The trial court ordered indemnity for funeral expenses and moral damages, and forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition to the government.

Court of Appeals Modification

Court of Appeals Ruling and Increased Penalties

On appeal the Court of Appeals modified the penalties, sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua for both illegal possession of firearm and murder, and increased civil indemnity to the victim’s widow by an additional P50,000. The appellate court invoked precedent (People v. Tac-an and People v. Morato) in supporting the imposition of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession where an unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of homicide.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Appeal

The accused raised two principal errors for Supreme Court review: (1) that the extrajudicial confession and the waiver were inadmissible because they were obtained without counsel of his own choice and under coercion; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction, including contesting the admissibility and completeness of witness Hamtig’s cross-examination.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Right to Counsel and Waiver

Right to Competent and Independent Counsel; Voluntariness of Statements

Applying Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution (the right to be informed, to remain silent, and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice), the Court examined whether the accused was effectively deprived of that right. The record showed the police informed the accused of his rights, that Atty. Abelardo Torres was introduced to and accepted by the accused during investigation, and that the accused did not indicate a desire to retain a different attorney before giving his statement. The Court emphasized that “preferably of his own choice” does not render selection exclusive or allow the accused to stall custodial processes indefinitely by insisting on a particular attorney’s immediate presence; consequently the presence and assistance of Atty. Torres did not, on the record, render the extrajudicial statement inadmissible. The Court accepted the trial court’s and appellate court’s factual findings that the confession and waiver were not involuntary nor obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Confrontation and Uncompleted Cross-Examination

Confrontation Clause and Partial Cross-Examination

Addressing the contention regarding incomplete cross-examination of eyewitness Felipe Hamtig, the Court reiterated that the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination is the constitutional concern; where substantial cross-examination has been conducted and the witness’s absence thereafter is not due to the prosecution, the testimony need not be stricken. The trial court had reason

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms