G.R. No. 112092 - People vs. Nunez y Lagasca

Case Summary (G.R. No. 112092)

Factual Background

Four persons, namely Teofilo Pacquing, Calixto Pacorza (as appearing in the narrative), Marlito Parinas, and Roy Tolentino, were riding a tricycle driven by Jerry Almendrez when they passed by the gate of the accused’s family compound. The accused fired at them from a distance of about twenty meters. The records stated that the shooting hit Pacquing on the right toe, Almendrez on the left breast, and Pacorza, who died as a result of the shooting.

The victims were brought to Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital, and Teofilo Pacquing reported the incident to the police. SPO1 Ernesto C. Gancena investigated. Pacquing informed him that the shooter was the accused. Gancena, together with other police officers, proceeded to the scene. When they arrived at the accused’s house, Gancena talked to the accused, who readily admitted that he was the one who shot Pacquing (as reflected in the decision’s narrative). The police recovered from the accused a caliber .22 “Squibman” rifle with telescope and the specified serial number. When asked for the permit, the accused could not produce any. The accused was brought to the police station; he refused to give a statement, and the incident was recorded in the police blotter.

Filing of Charges and Scope of the Case

The accused was charged through four separate informations: (1) homicide, (2) frustrated homicide, (3) frustrated homicide, and (4) illegal possession of firearms, docketed as Criminal Case No. U-6449. These cases were raffled to different branches. During the illegal possession case proceedings, the accused moved for the consolidation of the four cases, but the trial court denied the motion after the prosecutor opposed it. Consequently, the appeal involved only the illegal possession of firearms conviction.

Trial Court Proceedings

At arraignment on September 10, 1992, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented four PNP witnesses involved in the investigation and one victim, Teofilo Pacquing. SPO1 Gancena testified that the accused admitted that he shot Pacquing and that the firearm was recovered from him. PO3 Dismaya corroborated Gancena’s testimony. SPO1 Henry R. Kang testified that he recovered the firearm from the accused. SPO1 Nestor G. Manongsong testified through subpoena duces tecum that he could not bring the police blotter but produced a complaint/assignment sheet and a spot report.

Teofilo Pacquing testified on the circumstances of the attack and identified the accused as the assailant.

The defense presented five witnesses: the accused himself; Salvador Paz; Eugene Nunez; Cesar Nunez Celeste; and SPO4 Benito Opguar. The defense claimed that the shooting did not occur on the road but inside the living room of the accused’s aunt’s house. The accused asserted self-defense and narrated that armed men entered the compound and stoned houses, after which an altercation occurred in which he grappled with Calixto Pacurza and retrieved the .22 caliber rifle, which he then used when Pacurza drew a firearm.

The defense also claimed that Cesar Nunez Celeste owned the rifle and had a temporary license, but SPO4 Opguar testified that the temporary license had already lapsed at the time of the incident.

After trial, the RTC rendered its decision on May 26, 1993, convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm resulting to the death of the victim and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with costs.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The accused assigned several errors, principally challenging (a) the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and alleged inconsistencies; (b) the sufficiency of evidence to convict; (c) the alleged shifting of the burden of proof when he invoked self-defense; and (d) the admissibility of an alleged extra-judicial confession and the firearm seized without a valid warrant.

In particular, the accused pointed to alleged inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses on who recovered the firearm from him and where it was located when police arrived. The defense also argued that the trial court improperly treated his firearm possession as established despite the contested circumstances of its recovery, and that his invocation of self-defense should have prevented any shift in the burden of proof to him. On evidentiary issues, he argued that his alleged admission to police was inadmissible because he was allegedly not assisted by counsel and that the rifle was inadmissible for having been seized without a warrant.

The Office of the Solicitor General responded that it did not matter which police officer recovered the firearm. What mattered, it argued, was that the accused admitted possession at the time the victim was shot. It further maintained that the conviction was not based on the alleged extra-judicial confession but rather on admissions in court, and that the rifle was not seized from the accused but was surrendered to the police.

Appellate Issues

The appellate court framed the issues as primarily involving (1) the assessment of credibility of witnesses, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to convict for the charged offense. The Court applied the settled rule that appellate courts generally do not interfere with a trial court’s credibility determinations absent overlooked facts or misapprehension of significance.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court found that the prosecution’s version deserved credence. It held that the apparent inconsistencies on who recovered the firearm did not pertain to a material matter because at least one police officer recovered the firearm from the accused, and the accused did not deny his possession of the firearm. The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, which it found not overturned by contrary evidence.

On the elements of illegal possession of firearms, the Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove: (a) the existence of the subject firearm, and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess it. It held that both elements were established. The Court treated the victim’s testimony and the police testimony as proving the accused’s possession and use of the firearm at the time of the attack, and it dismissed the accused’s attempt to characterize his possession as merely “transient,” explaining that the position received scant consideration because the Court credited the prosecution’s narrative.

Regarding license or permit, the defense witness testimony showed that a temporary license had been issued to Cesar Nunez Celeste, but it had already lapsed by the time of the incident. Thus, the Court found that the accused lacked any valid license to possess the rifle.

The Court then addressed the classification and penalty of the offense. At the time of the commission of the crime, the prevailing jurisprudence, People v. Quijada, treated the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing as producing two separate offenses: one for the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm and another for homicide or murder. The Court noted that Republic Act No. 8294 later changed the framework by lowering penalties for illegal possession and by providing, in Section 1, third paragraph, that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance. The Court referenced People v. Molina, which held that after the passage of R.A. No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed weapon in homicide or murder should be treated merely as aggravating and no longer as a separate offense.

However, the Court ruled that Molina did not apply on the facts. In Molina, informations for murder, frustrated murder, and illegal possession were filed and later consolidated and jointly tried and decided. In the present case, the records showed that there were four separate cases filed against the accused and that the homicide and frustrated homicide evidence was neither adopted nor presented before the trial court trying the illegal possession case. The Court therefore found a dearth of evidence on record to support a finding of homicide and/or frustrated homicide within the illegal possession case. It held that the accused should be convicted only of simple illegal possession of firearms.

The Court further applied the favorable retroactive effect of R.A. No. 8294. It noted that under the Act, the pena

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 112092)

The case arose from the appeal of Robert Nunez y Lagasca (“appellant”) from a Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 48 decision dated May 26, 1993.
The trial court convicted appellant of qualified illegal possession of firearms, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay the costs.
Only the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms was presented for appellate review because other homicide-related cases were tried separately and were not within the record for this proceeding.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted appellant as the plaintiff-appellee.
Appellant appeared as the accused-appellant.
Appellant was charged with four separate informations for homicide, frustrated homicide, frustrated homicide, and illegal possession of firearms, but only the illegal possession case (Criminal Case No. U-6449) reached the appellate Court.

Key Factual Allegations

On March 6, 1992, around two to three o’clock in the afternoon, four persons rode a tricycle driven by Jerry Almendrez through Palina Sur, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
Appellant fired at the victims from a distance of about twenty meters when they passed by the gate of appellant’s family compound.
The prosecution evidence stated that appellant’s gunfire hit Teofilo Pacquing on the right toe, hit Jerry Almendrez on the left breast, and resulted in the death of Calixto Pacorza.
The victims were brought to Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital for treatment, and Teofilo Pacquing reported the incident to the police.
SPO1 Ernesto C. Gancena investigated the incident and testified that Teofilo Pacquing identified appellant as the shooter.
Upon reaching appellant’s house, SPO1 Gancena testified that appellant readily admitted that he was the one who shot Pacquing.
SPO1 Henry R. Kang recovered a caliber .22 rifle “Squibman,” model 116 MK with serial number A-320554 and a telescope from appellant.
When asked for a permit, appellant allegedly could not produce any.
Appellant was brought to the police station for investigation, and he refused to give any statement.
The firearm was stated in the information to have been used in the commission of the homicide and double frustrated homicide charges against the persons of Calixto Pacursa (sic), Jerry Armendez (sic), and Teofilo Pacquing.

Charging and Information Particulars

The Information for illegal possession charged that appellant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possessed and controlled a caliber .22 rifle 116MK bearing serial A320554 and trademark “Kassnar Squibman,” with a magazine and nine (9) live ammunitions.
The Information alleged possession without first securing the necessary permit or license from lawful authorities.
The Information cited Presidential Decree No. 1866 as the governing law.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. U-6449.

Trial Evidence Presented

The prosecution presented the police witnesses involved in the investigation and one victim witness, Teofilo Pacquing.
SPO1 Ernesto C. Gancena testified that appellant admitted to him that he shot the victim Pacorza.
PO2 Asterio Dismaya corroborated SPO1 Gancena’s testimony.
SPO1 Henry R. Kang testified that he recovered the firearm from appellant.
SPO1 Nestor G. Manongsong, responding to a subpoena duces tecum, testified that he could not bring the police blotter but presented a complaint/assignment sheet and a spot report.
Teofilo Pacquing testified on the circumstances surrounding the attack and identified appellant as the assailant.

Defense Evidence and Theory

Appellant presented five witnesses: appellant himself, Salvador Paz, Eugene Nunez, Cesar Nunez Celeste, and SPO4 Benito Opguar.
Appellant’s version placed the incident inside the living room of appellant’s aunt’s house rather than on the road.
Appellant claimed self-defense, describing that armed men arrived, stoned houses, and chased him, after which he allegedly retrieved the .22 firearm during a grapple with Calixto Pacurza.
Salvador Paz corroborated appellant by testifying that he was present in the vicinity and supporting the defense narrative.
Eugene Nunez allegedly witnessed relevant events from inside the kitchen of Magdalena Celeste.
Cesar Celeste testified that he owned the firearm, that he had left the licensed firearm on top of the bed, and that he applied for a license through First Continental Co., Inc.
SPO4 Benito Opguar testified that Cesar Celeste had a temporary license but it already lapsed at the time of the shooting incident.

Consolidation Motion Denied

After prosecution evidence in the illegal possession case was completed, appellant filed a motion for consolidation of the four cases.
The public prosecutor opposed consolidation.
The trial court denied the motion.

Appellate Issues