G.R. No. 210710 - People vs. Gaborne y Cinco

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210710)

Factual Background

On 2 February 2007 at about 10:30 to 11:00 p.m., Rey Perfecto De Luna and Sixto Elizan entered a videoke bar in Barangay Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar. Noli Abayan, the appellant and Joselito Bardelas arrived shortly thereafter. While the victims were drinking and singing, four successive shots were fired through a window. Both victims were struck from behind. Witnesses, including Marialinisa Pasana and De Luna, identified the appellant, clad in a black T-shirt and black cap, as the person holding and aiming a gun at their location. Appellant and Bardelas fled. Elizan was declared dead upon arrival at St. Paul’s Hospital, Tacloban City; De Luna survived following emergency surgery. Appellant denied culpability, offered an alibi and an alternative account involving an alleged threat by a waitress, and asserted that another man in black shirt and camouflage pants fired the shots. Appellant and Bardelas were arrested the following day and underwent paraffin tests.

Charges and Arraignment

Appellant and two others were charged in separate Informations with crimes described as Murder with the use of an Unlicensed Firearm and Frustrated Murder. The Informations alleged that on 2 February 2007, with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, the accused shot Sixto Elizan, causing his instantaneous death, and shot Rey Perfecto De Luna, inflicting wounds that would have resulted in death but for timely medical intervention. The Informations alleged the use of a caliber .45 unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance pursuant to R.A. No. 8294. On arraignment, appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to both charges.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court rendered a joint judgment on 12 March 2010 finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crimes charged. The RTC convicted appellant of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm (Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1640) and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, and ordered payment to the heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 in moral damages, and Php25,000.00 in exemplary damages. The RTC likewise found appellant guilty of Frustrated Murder (Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1650) and imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven years of Prision Mayor as minimum to eighteen years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, with civil liability to Rey Perfecto De Luna in the amount of Php264,866.58. The RTC acquitted co-accused Noli Abayan and Joselito Bardelas for lack of proof.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified awards for damages. The CA affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages of Php50,000.00, and exemplary damages of Php25,000.00 in Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1640. In Criminal Case No. CC-2007-1650, the CA ordered payment of moral damages of Php40,000.00 and exemplary damages of Php20,000.00 to Rey Perfecto De Luna. The CA further ordered that all monetary awards earn interest at the legal rate of six percent per annum from finality until full payment.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant raised several contentions including the illegality of his arrest, the insufficiency of identification and proof linking him to the shooting, the negative paraffin test, the absence of the firearm as physical evidence and the consequent failure to establish the corpus delicti of the unlicensed firearm aggravating circumstance, and alleged errors in the award of damages. The Supreme Court first addressed the procedural contention regarding the legality of arrest.

Procedural Ruling on Challenge to Arrest

The Court held that objections to a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entry of plea; otherwise they are waived. Citing People v. Velasco and related authorities, the Court observed that appellant raised the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal and was therefore estopped from doing so. The Court further noted that any irregularity in arrest was cured by appellant’s voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court through active participation in arraignment and trial.

Findings on Elements of Murder and Frustrated Murder

The Court found that the elements of Murder, as defined in Article 248, Revised Penal Code, were established and that the killing was qualified by treachery. The Court explicated the elements of murder and the requisites of treachery, and concluded that the sudden and swift shooting from behind deprived the victims of any opportunity to defend themselves, and that appellant’s deliberate use of a firearm and departure from the videoke bar evidenced conscious adoption of means to insure execution of the crime. The Court also found that the elements of Frustrated Murder were present, explaining that appellant performed all acts of execution that would have produced death as a consequence, but timely and able medical treatment rendered the fatal outcome independent of appellant’s will. The Court relied upon medical testimony that De Luna would have died without prompt surgery.

Evaluation of Identification and the Defense of Denial

The Court gave substantial weight to eyewitness identification by Pasana and De Luna, whose testimony and in-court identification pinpointed appellant as the shooter. The Court emphasized the RTC’s advantageous position to assess witness demeanor and credibility. The Court reiterated the doctrine that the defense of denial is inherently weak when unsupported by credible corroboration and that motive is not synonymous with intent; absence of a proved motive does not establish innocence. The Court thus found appellant’s denial and alibi unconvincing in light of positive identifications.

Treatment of Paraffin Tests

The Court held that the negative paraffin test result did not undermine the eyewitness identifications. The Court explained that paraffin tests are generally unreliable; they merely indicate the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites and cannot conclusively establish that such residues resulted from firearm discharge. The Court also noted that an accused may have fired a weapon and still test negative depending on subsequent washing or perspiration, especially where arrest occurred the day after the incident.

Corpus Delicti of the Firearm and Aggravating Circumstance of Unlicensed Firearm

The Court rejected appellant’s contention that the corpus delicti of the unlicensed firearm aggravating circumstance was not established because the weapon was not produced. Relying on precedents such as People v. Lualhati and People v. Orehuela, the Court reiterated that the existence of a firearm may be established by credible testimonial evidence. The Court further accepted the PNP certification that appellant had no firearm license, thereby satisfying the elements of the aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm. The Court explained the legislative scheme under R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591 that treats illegal possession used in the commission of homicide or murder as an aggravating circumstance rather than as a separate punishable offense, and applied R.A. No. 9346 to remove death as a penalty and mandate imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Damages and Modification by the Supreme Court

The Court modified the damages awarded by the lower courts in light of recent jurisprudence. For the crime of Murder with the use

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210710)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted the case against Luisito Gaborne y Cinco, who was charged together with two others in two separate Informations for Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm and Frustrated Murder.
The accused entered a plea of NOT GUILTY at arraignment and the case proceeded to trial before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar.
The RTC rendered a joint judgment dated 12 March 2010 convicting appellant of Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm and of Frustrated Murder and acquitting two co-accused.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision by a decision dated 29 July 2013 with modifications as to damages.
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and rendered the decision under review on July 27, 2016, affirming with further modifications.

Key Factual Allegations

On 2 February 2007 at about ten-thirty in the evening, victims Rey Perfecto De Luna and Sixto Elizan entered a videoke bar at Barangay Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar, and were later fired upon through a window.
Four successive gunshots struck the victims from behind while they were drinking and singing, resulting in the instantaneous death of Elizan and serious injuries to De Luna.
Witnesses, including Marialinisa Pasana and De Luna, identified appellant as the person in a black shirt and black cap who held a gun and aimed at their location, and testified that appellant fled with co-accused Bardelas.
Appellant denied involvement, claimed an alibi and averred that a different man in camouflage fired the shots, and asserted that the waitress threatened them prior to the shooting.
Appellant and Bardelas were arrested the day after the incident and underwent paraffin tests, which yielded negative results for gunpowder residue.

Procedural History

The RTC found appellant GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm and Frustrated Murder, imposed sentences and ordered civil liabilities on 12 March 2010.
The RTC acquitted co-accused Noli Abayan y Largabo and Joselito Bardelas y Bacnotan for lack of proof and ordered their release.
The Court of Appeals denied appellant's appeal and modified the awards of damages in its 29 July 2013 decision.
The Supreme Court required supplemental briefs, received adoption of the parties' briefs, and issued the final decision affirming with modifications on July 27, 2016.

Issues Presented

Whether appellant was precluded from assailing the legality of his arrest for failing to raise the objection before plea.
Whether the prosecution proved the elements of Murder and Frustrated Murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether eyewitness identification outweighed appellant's denial and the negative paraffin test.
Whether the corpus delicti of the use of an unlicensed firearm was established despite the absence of the firearm in evidence.
Whether unlawful possession of a firearm must be prosecuted separately or is an aggravating circumstance in homicide cases.
Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages should be modified.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant contended that his arrest was illegal, that he was misidentified, that a negative paraffin test exculpated him, and that he had no motive to commit the crime.
The prosecution contended that eyewitnesses positively identified appellant as the shooter, that medical and circumstantial facts established intent and treachery, and that certification from the Philippine National Police proved appellant was not a licensed firearm holder.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision with modifications and found appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Mu