G.R. No. 140514-15 - People vs. Ignas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140514-15)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines (Office of the Solicitor General as appellee).
Respondent/Accused-Appellant: June Ignas y Sanggino.

Key Dates

Alleged killing/incident: March 10, 1996 (shooting at the Trading Post, La Trinidad).
Trial court initial judgment (conviction and penalty): February 18, 1999 (reclusion perpetua).
Trial court amended judgment (upgraded penalty): June 2, 1999 (death by lethal injection).
(Supreme Court automatic review and resolution are reflected in the record supplied.)

Applicable Law and Procedural Framework

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered after 1990; therefore this is the governing Constitution).
Penal statutes and rules cited in the decision: Revised Penal Code (Articles 248 and 249), RA No. 8294 (amendment treating use of unlicensed firearm as special aggravating circumstance), Indeterminate Sentence Law, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 110 concerning designation and specification of offenses), Rules of Court on admissibility (e.g., Rule 130 on admissions), and precedent cited within the decision.

Procedural Background

The criminal proceedings began with an information originally charging murder. During trial, the prosecutor amended the information to charge “unlawful killing” and alleged use of an unlicensed .38 firearm; a separate information for illegal possession of firearm was later filed. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and initially imposed reclusion perpetua, but on the prosecution’s motion upgraded the penalty to death. RA No. 8294 later rendered separate illegal-possession convictions inappropriate where homicide/murder was committed with an unlicensed firearm; the amended charges and the trial court’s rulings proceeded to automatic review.

Material Facts Found by the Trial Court

The accused’s wife had an extramarital relationship with the victim, as revealed in letters sent from Taiwan to Romenda and then disclosed to the accused in late February 1996.
The accused expressed a declared intention to kill the paramour and displayed anger to neighbors and tribal elders.
On March 10, 1996, around 10:00 p.m., witnesses at the Trading Post heard two gunshots. Annie Bayanes saw a person fall and then observed, approximately five or six meters away, a person tucking a handgun into his waistband whom she recognized as the accused. Marlon Manis observed a person walking away whom he identified by build and gait as the accused.
Later that night (about 10:30 p.m.) the accused allegedly went to Mona Barredo’s house, removed a handgun and emptied two spent .38 shells, told Barredo to discard the shells, and admitted to having shot the victim; he remained at her house for several hours. Two spent .38 shells were later recovered from Barredo’s sweet potato patch; a .38 slug was recovered from the victim’s body; post-mortem showed entry wound in the back, and blackened edges indicating close range.
Police and acquaintances subsequently located the accused at Kayapa; he was brought back to La Trinidad, and witnesses testified to admissions made by the accused to police and to private persons.

Issue Framing on Appeal

The main issues considered were: (1) whether the crime established by the amended information and the evidence was murder or only homicide; (2) whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction; (3) whether the penalty as imposed was correct (including whether special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm was proven and whether mitigating circumstances applied); and (4) whether the damages awarded were properly supported.

Murder Versus Homicide — Sufficiency of Allegations in the Information

The Court held that the amended information did not adequately allege the qualifying and aggravating circumstances (treachery, evident premeditation, nocturnity) required to sustain a murder charge under Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandates specification of such circumstances in the information. The 2000 Revised Rules were applied retroactively insofar as they were favorable to the accused. Consequently, the amended information at best charged homicide under Article 249, not murder under Article 248, and the accused could not be convicted of murder on that amended information. Separately, the information for illegal possession of firearm was properly dismissed under RA No. 8294 because the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide/murder is treated as a special aggravating circumstance rather than a separate offense.

Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence — Identification and Circumstantial Proof

The Court sustained the trial court’s factual findings as to identification and found the combined circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove that the accused killed the victim beyond reasonable doubt. Key points in the analysis were: the witnesses’ prior familiarity with the accused (Bayanes had known him for about ten years; Manis knew him since childhood), the proximity and lighting conditions that permitted Bayanes to view the assailant’s face and recognize the accused, corroborative observations of a person walking away who matched the accused’s build and gait, the disclosure and conduct at Barredo’s house (emptying and telling her to discard the shells, admission of having shot the victim, staying the night), forensic linkage (recovery of .38 slug from the victim and spent shells from Barredo’s property), and admissions made to third parties and to investigating officers. The Court applied the standard for circumstantial evidence: multiple proven circumstances which, combined, produce moral certainty. The accused’s alibi was rejected because it was not shown to be physically impossible for him to have been present at the locus criminis given the distance and mobility between Kayapa and La Trinidad.

Admissibility of Admissions and Res Gestae Considerations

The Court found the accused’s verbal admissions to private persons (Barredo, Bayacsan, Pauline Gumpic) and statements to police admissible. Admissions made to private persons are admissible as acts or declarations of a party. The Court also characterized the statement to Barredo (made within a short time after the shooting) as part of the res gestae because it was spontaneous, contemporaneous with the event, and concerned the occurrence and its immediately attending circumstances. The fact that some admissions were made while in custody did not render them inadmissible as uncounseled confessions when they were not elicited by the police in the course of a custodial interrogation.

Aggravating Circumstance: Use of an Unlicensed Firearm

Although the unlicensed firearm was alleged in the amended information, the Court held that the prosecution bore the burden to prove both the existence of the firearm used and the absence of a license or permit. The prosecution failed to present proof (for example, a certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division or testimony from the licensing officer) that the accused lacked a license for a .38 caliber firearm. Because the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm was not established beyond reasonable doubt, it could not be considered to increase the penalty to its maximum.

Mitigating Circumstances: Immediate Vindication, Passion and Obfuscation, Voluntary Surrender

The Court rejected the accused’s claims to mitigating circumstances. The alleged mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication (proximate vengeance for a grave offense) was inapplicable because the two-week interval between discovery of the wife’s affair and the killing was sufficient time for the accused to regain composure; hence it was not proximate. Passion and obfuscation were likewise inapplicable: they cannot be claimed concurrently with proximate vindication when arising from the same facts, and in any event the elapsed time negated the requi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140514-15)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 458 Phil. 965, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003.
Decision authored by Justice Quisumbing.
Case originates from Criminal Case No. 96-CR-2522, Regional Trial Court (RTC), La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 8.
RTC initially found appellant guilty of murder aggravated by use of an unlicensed firearm in an amended decision dated June 2, 1999.
Appellant originally sentenced to reclusion perpetua; prosecution’s motion for reconsideration resulted in amendment of sentence to death by lethal injection.
This Supreme Court action is the automatic review of the RTC judgment.
The Court modified the conviction to homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty; the separate information for illegal possession of firearms in Criminal Case No. 97-CR-2753 was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed in effect by application of R.A. No. 8294.

Parties

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines (Office of the Solicitor General represented the prosecution).
Accused-Appellant: June Ignas y Sanggino.
Victim: Nemesio Lopate (deceased).
Other persons of interest: Wilma Grace Ignas (appellant’s wife), Romenda (Rominda) Foyagao (friend/confidante), Pauline Gumpic (owner of Windfield Enterprise; victim’s sister), Alfred Mayamnes (tribal elder and neighbor), Annie Bayanes (trader/witness), Marlon Manis (witness), Mona Barredo (bakery worker/witness), Ben Anoma (defense witness/co-baker), Julio Bayacsan (friend of appellant/witness), SPO4 Arthur Bomagao (investigating officer), Dr. Doris C. Jovellanos (municipal health officer who conducted autopsy).

Relevant Legal Provisions and Doctrines Applied

Article 248 (murder) and Article 249 (homicide) of the Revised Penal Code; Article 64 (penalty application).
Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding amendment and designation of offense and need to allege qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
R.A. No. 8294 (effectively renders use of unlicensed firearm a special aggravating circumstance and bars separate conviction for illegal possession where homicide or murder is committed with an unlicensed firearm).
Rules on admissibility of admissions and res gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 26; rules on statements to private persons).
Indeterminate Sentence Law applied to convert fixed penalty to indeterminate minimum and maximum terms.
Principles on circumstantial evidence requiring multiple proven facts leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Requisites and limits for recognizing mitigating circumstances (immediate vindication/proxima, passion and obfuscation, voluntary surrender).

Background and Personal Circumstances of Appellant and Victim

Appellant: elementary school graduate; resident of Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet; operated a bakery; married to Wilma Grace Ignas; father to a minor son.
Wilma Grace Ignas: formerly cashier at Windfield Enterprise owned by Pauline Gumpic; maintained extramarital relations with Nemesio Lopate according to testimony and letters.
Victim Nemesio Lopate: brother of Pauline Gumpic; known to witnesses and community; age 29 at death per death certificate.

Chronology and Core Factual Narrative

September 1995: Wilma Grace confided to close friend Romenda that she had an affair with Nemesio; the trio traveled to Manila on October 16, 1995 and lodged at Dangwa Inn; Nemesio and Wilma Grace shared a room; Wilma left for Taiwan October 18, 1995.
From Taiwan Wilma Grace sent four letters to Romenda; two were meant to be read by Nemesio and two instructed Romenda to tell appellant about the affair.
Late February 1996: Romenda informed appellant of the affair; appellant became furious and declared an intention to kill Nemesio; appellant retrieved Wilma Grace’s letters from Romenda.
Following revelation, tribal elders and neighbor Alfred Mayamnes discussed the matter; appellant admitted the affair and was urged to await cooling of tempers; appellant attempted to sell bakery equipment, packed and left for Nueva Vizcaya (Kayapa) in early March 1996.
March 10, 1996, around 10:00 p.m., at the Trading Post (bagsakan), two gunshots were heard; Nemesio fell; witnesses observed a person standing behind the fallen victim tucking a handgun in his waistband and walking away; the person was identified by a witness as appellant.
Approximately 10:30 p.m., appellant allegedly visited Mona Barredo’s residence, removed a handgun from his jacket, emptied shells from chamber and asked her to discard the cartridges; he reportedly told Barredo he had shot his wife’s paramour and stayed at her house for the night.
Police recovered spent .38 caliber shells from Barredo’s sweet potato garden with her assistance; Dr. Jovellanos’ autopsy found gunshot wounds, recovered a .38 slug, determined cause of death as hypovolemia due to gunshot wound; blackened wound edges indicated firing from less than three feet.

Charges, Informations and Amendments

Original information docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-CR-2252 charged appellant with murder, alleging treachery and evident premeditation and intent to kill using a Cal. 38 handgun.
A separate information (Criminal Case No. 97-CR-2753) later charged illegal possession of a Cal. 38 handgun and ammunition.
The Provincial Prosecutor amended the information in Criminal Case No. 96-CR-2252 to charge murder committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110; amended information did not specifically allege treachery, evident premeditation, or nocturnity in express terms as required by later Rule 110 directives.
Appellant arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits proceeded.

Testimony and Material Witness Evidence (summarized)

Annie Bayanes (trader): heard two shots; saw a person behind the fallen individual, some 16 inches away, tuck a handgun into his waistband and casually walk away; recognized appellant’s face (knowing him for years); was 5–6 meters away; lighting from parked jeepney taillight and bagsakan roof aided recognition.
Marlon Manis: heard shots, saw people converge on the victim; identified slain person as Nemesio (known since Grade 2); saw someone hastily walking away about 25 meters away, could not clearly see face but from gait and build identified the person as appellant (a neighbor and frequent customer of appellant’s bakery); acknowledged dim lighting at scene.
Mona Barredo (bakery worker): knew appellant as former co-worker; at ~10:30 p.m. March 10 appellant came to her house, produced a handgun, removed empty shells and directed her to throw them out of the window (she complied); appellant told her he had shot his wife’s paramour; appellant stayed 8–9 hours and left morning March 11; Barredo later assisted police and two spent .38 shells were recovered from her sweet potato garden.
Dr. Doris C. Jovellanos (Municipal Health Officer): conducted post-mortem; described entry and exit wounds on mouth and back; recovered .38 slug from left shoulder; concluded cause of death: hypovolemia due to gunshot wound to back; blackened edges indicated shooting from less than three feet.
Paulina Gumpic (victim’s sister): while appellant in police custody, had private talk where appellant admitted killing her brother and said motive was illicit relations with appellant’s wife and failure to ask forgiveness.
SPO4 Arthur Bomagao (investigator): testified appellant voluntarily admitted he shot the victim with a .38 caliber handgun and surrendered Wilma Grace’s letters to police.
Julio Bayacsan (friend of appellant): testified appellant admitted at La Trinidad Police Station that he shot and killed Nemesio; Bayacsan did not inform police earlier because appellant was his friend.
Alfred Mayamnes (neighbor, Kankanaey elder): corroborated that appellant was angry when told of the affair, advised victim to stay at community until things cooled, saw appellant sell/pack bakery equipment and depart; conversed with appellant confirming the affair.
Ben Anoma (defense witness/co-partner): testified to partnership with appellant and that the latter transferred equipment to Kayapa and baked bread with him on March 10 until 11:00 p.m.

Physical and Forensic Evidence

Autopsy findings detailed in Exhibit “C”: entry and exit wounds including back wound at fifth intercostal space subscapular area; recovered .38 caliber slug.
Two spent .38 caliber shells recovered from Mona Barredo’s sweet potato garden with her assistance on March 18, 1996.
Trial records include letters from Wilma Grace to Romenda and evidence exhibits (Exhibit “G”, Exhibit “I”, other folder items).

Defense: Alibi and Supporting Testimony

Appellant’s defense: alibi he entered partnership with Ben Anoma in Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya in late February 1996 and transferred bakery equipment March 8, 1996; claimed he was in Kayapa baking bread with Anoma on the night of March 10 and remained until police brought him back on March 14.
Ben Anoma corroborated appellant’s transfer of equipment and asserted both baked br