Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17240)
Factual Background
The evidence for the prosecution showed that while prosecution witness Epifanio Cabe was walking along the street in barrio Dapdap and arrived in front of the house of Pablo Jazmines, he saw the appellant holding Carlos Tapong by the neck. The two were apparently wrestling. The appellant’s cousin, Carlito Pajenado, intervened, and the two Pajenados succeeded in throwing Tapong to the ground. Carlito held Tapong by the shoulder and pinned him down, while the appellant held him by one leg. With Tapong held helplessly, the appellant drew a gun and fired at him. After the shooting, Carlito stood up and ran away, while the appellant remained at the scene with the drawn firearm until a policeman, identified in the record as another Pajenado, Ernesto, arrived and took the firearm from him.
Another prosecution witness, Pelagia Tapong, testified that at noon on the same day, she was at the window of her elder brother’s house along the street where the incident took place. She saw the appellant standing on the street. When Carlos Tapong appeared, the appellant immediately met him and held him by the neck. Thereafter, Carlito intervened and, together, they were able to fell Carlos to the ground.
It was not denied that Carlos Tapong died as a result of the gun-shot wound inflicted during the incident. Dr. Tan testified that he conducted a post mortem examination of the cadaver and found three gun-shot wounds which, in his opinion, were caused by a single shot from a .45 caliber pistol. He also testified that powder burns indicated the shot was fired at a distance of less than one meter, and that death was caused by shock due to external and internal hemorrhage.
Criminal Charges, Arraignment, and Joint Trial
In the Court of First Instance of Samar, the appellant was charged with two offenses: murder (Criminal Case No. 3492, now G.R. No. L-27680) and illegal possession of a firearm (Criminal Case No. 3558, now G.R. No. L-27681). Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty in both cases. The trial court held a joint trial, and it convicted him on both charges.
Judgment of the Trial Court
The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Carlos Tapong in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the cost of suit. As to illegal possession of a firearm, the trial court likewise found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment of not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, and to pay the cost of suit.
Issues Raised on Appeal
The appellant raised assignments of error that presented two principal questions for resolution. First, whether the evidence warranted conviction for murder or only homicide, and whether the alleged qualifying circumstances were proven. Second, whether the appellant should also be found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm.
Appellant’s Theory and the Solicitor General’s Position
The Solicitor General agreed with the appellant’s view that the appellant should be convicted merely of homicide with one aggravating circumstance, because the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information—evident premeditation and treachery—had not been proved.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Murder Charge
The Court disagreed with the Solicitor General and the appellant as to the murder conviction. It held that the testimony of Pelagia Tapong showed that, for some time before the incident, the appellant had been waiting for Carlos Tapong to appear. It also held that when Tapong arrived, the appellant met him and held him by the neck, after which Carlito helped throw Tapong to the ground. The Court considered these circumstances sufficient evidence of premeditation, thereby supporting the murder conviction as charged.
On treachery, however, the Court ruled that it was not proved. It also noted that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which the defense admitted through counsel, had to be considered in the imposition of the corresponding penalty. It therefore maintained the conviction for murder but adjusted the penalty computation in light of the absence of proof of treachery and the Court’s treatment of the penalty in view of vote requirements reflected in the decision text.
Penalty Modification and Indemnity Increase
The Court held that although it affirmed the trial court’s penalty of reclusion perpetua, it did so while stating that, for lack of the required number of votes to impose the corresponding penalty in its maximum degree, only reclusion perpetua would be maintained. It also ordered an increase in the indemnity due to the heirs of Carlos Tapong, raising it to P12,000.00.
Supreme Court’s Evaluation of the Illegal Possession Charge
On the charge of illegal possession of a firearm, the Court agreed with both the appellant’s counsel and the Solicitor General that the conviction could not stand and that the appealed decision should be reversed in that respect.
The Court acknowledged that older jurisprudence, such as People vs. Lubo, 101 Phil. 179 and People vs. Ramos, 8 SCRA 758, could support the proposition that the accused should prove issuance of a license. Yet the Court adopted a different view grounded in the Rules of Court. It reasoned that under Section 2, Rule 131, in criminal cases the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if it is “an essential ingredient of the offense charged.”
The Court held that the lack or absence of a license was an essential ingredient of illegal possession of a firearm in the case before it. It pointed to the information in Criminal Case No. 3558, which specifically alleged that the appellant had no “license or permit to possess” the .45 caliber pistol. The Court therefore concluded that it was the prosecution’s duty not merely to allege the negative fact but to prove it. It then supported this allocation of the burden of proof by reference to prior decisions involving negative averments treated as essential elements of the charged offense.
In U.S. vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303, the Court had held that the negative fact of lack of qualification to be a voter was an essential element and should be proved by the prosecution. In People vs. Quebral, 68 Phil. 564, the Court similarly held that when the negative averment—such as acts prohibited without the required certificate—was an essential ingredient of the offense, the prosecution bore the burden to prove it, even though it might suffice to establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable due to the difficulty of proving negatives. The Court further quoted the view of Former Chief Justice Moran from his Comments on the Rul
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17240)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The case involved Openiano Pajenado @ Peming as appellant and People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee.
- The Court of First Instance of Samar convicted appellant in two separate criminal cases after arraignment with a plea of not guilty in both: murder (Criminal Case No. 3492, later G.R. No. L-27680) and illegal possession of a firearm (Criminal Case No. 3558, later G.R. No. L-27681).
- The trial court conducted a joint trial of the two cases and rendered separate convictions and sentences.
- On appeal, appellant assigned errors that challenged both the correctness of the murder conviction as to the degree of offense and the firearm conviction for lack of proof.
Charges and Trial Court Dispositions
- In the murder case, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed reclusion perpetua.
- The trial court ordered appellant to indemnify the heirs of Carlos Tapong in the amount of P6,000.00 and to pay costs.
- In the illegal possession case, the trial court likewise found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment of “not less than One (1) year nor more than Five (5) years” and to pay costs.
Key Factual Allegations
- The prosecution evidence showed that at about twelve o’clock noon on December 31, 1965, prosecution witness Epifanio Cabe saw appellant holding the deceased Carlos Tapong by the neck while the two appeared to wrestle.
- During the struggle, appellant’s cousin Carlito Pajenado intervened, and the Pajenos were able to throw Tapong to the ground.
- The evidence stated that Carlito Pajenado held Tapong by the shoulder and pinned him down, while appellant held him by one leg.
- While Carlos Tapong was thus held helplessly, appellant drew his gun and fired at him.
- After the firing, Carlito Pajenado stood up and ran away, while appellant remained at the scene with the drawn gun until a policeman, another Pajenado (Ernesto), arrived and took the firearm from him.
- The record established that Carlos Tapong died as a result of the gun-shot wound inflicted during the incident.
- Prosecution witness Pelagia Tapong corroborated the material sequence: appellant met Carlos Tapong, held him by the neck, and thereafter Carlito Pajenado helped appellant fell Carlos to the ground.
Medical Findings and Cause of Death
- Dr. Angel Tan, municipal health officer of Las Navas, conducted a post mortem examination on January 1, 1966.
- Dr. Tan found that the deceased sustained three gun-shot wounds that he opined were caused by a single shot from a .45 caliber pistol.
- The autopsy narrative described one wound with entrance at the postero-medial portion of the distal third of the thigh with an exit elsewhere, and another entrance at the right hypogastric region that penetrated the abdominal cavity and perforated the intestines.
- Dr. Tan testified that the presence of powder burns indicated the shot was fired at a distance of less than one meter.
- Dr. Tan concluded that the cause of death was shock due to external and internal hemorrhage.
Issues Raised on Appeal
- Appellant challenged whether his liability should be reduced from murder to homicide, premised on the alleged failure to prove qualifying circumstances.
- Appellant also questioned whether he could properly be convicted for illegal possession of a firearm, given the alleged insufficiency of proof regarding the alleged lack of license or permit.
- The Solicitor General aligned with appellant on the firearm issue and partially aligned on the qualifying circumstances, urging conviction for homicide rather than murder due to unproved evident premeditation and treachery.
Parties’ Contentions
- The Solicitor General argued that the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery alleged in the information were not proved.
- The Solicitor General maintained that appellant should be convicted only of homicide with one aggravating circumstance not offset by mitigating circumstance.
- Appellant and the Solicitor General agreed that the conviction for illegal possession of a firearm should not stand for lack of a sufficient evidentiary basis.
- Appellant also conceded an aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength for penalty purposes, as stated in the appellant’s brief.