Case Summary (G.R. No. 238659)
Key Dates
Incident: On or about 14 December 1984
Charging instrument for P.D. No. 1866 offense: 18 December 1984
Amended information for murder: 11 January 1985
Trial court decision convicting appellant: 31 July 1986
Supreme Court decision on appeal: 26 February 1990
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
- Presidential Decree No. 1866, Section 1 (unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition; provides increased penalty where homicide or murder is committed with an unlicensed firearm).
- Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 248 (murder) and Article 14 (enumeration of aggravating circumstances); Article 11 (self-defense requisites); Article 62 (effect of aggravating circumstances that are specially punishable); Article 70 (consecutive sentences).
- B.P. Blg. 179, Section 17 (state of being under influence of dangerous drugs as a qualifying aggravating circumstance).
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as decision date is 1990; conversion of death penalty to reclusion perpetua noted in reasoning).
Procedural Posture and Trial Court Disposition
- Appellant pleaded not guilty to both informations. The two cases were consolidated for trial.
- Trial court convicted appellant of qualified illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under P.D. No. 1866 and of murder under Article 248, RPC, and sentenced him to death in both cases. The trial court found several aggravating circumstances: evident premeditation, treachery (used to qualify to murder), acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs, use of an unlicensed firearm, and insult to a person in authority. The trial court also awarded civil indemnities and damages to the heirs and parents of the deceased.
Facts Found by the Trial Court and Accepted on Appeal
- Appellant and victim were classmates and former friends; relationship soured after incidents including quarrels and derogatory graffiti.
- During an English class on 14 December 1984 appellant left the classroom, returned with a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, burst into the math class (Room 15), shut the door, and fired multiple times at the victim and about the room, endangering students and teachers. The victim was struck by gunfire, fell, and, while sprawled and defenseless, was shot again in the chest and later died. Appellant then locked the victim in the room, held hostages in the faculty room, reloaded, and eventually surrendered the gun through his brother; arrest was effected by police. Ballistic evidence linked the empty cartridges to the recovered revolver.
Issue: Trial Court’s Credibility Determinations
- The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of credibility, relying on positive and direct testimony of multiple eyewitnesses (teachers and students) who described appellant’s entry with a firearm, repeated firing, and the final fatal shot while the victim was defenseless. The appellate court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual findings.
Self-Defense Claim — Legal Standard and Application
- Legal requisites for self-defense (Article 11, RPC): (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression; (c) lack of sufficient provocation by the accused.
- Application: Appellant’s testimony asserted prior oral threats by the victim; however, no corroborating evidence supported those threats. The Court held that mere verbal threats by an obviously unarmed adolescent in a classroom cannot constitute the sort of actual or clearly imminent unlawful aggression required for lawful self-defense. Consequently, the claim of complete or incomplete self-defense was rejected.
Applicability of P.D. No. 1866
- Appellant argued P.D. No. 1866 was a martial-law-era measure and ceased to be applicable when martial law ended. The Court rejected this contention: P.D. No. 1866, promulgated on 29 June 1983, contained no temporal limit tied to martial law. By its terms it sought to consolidate and harmonize existing firearm laws and remained in force. The Court therefore sustained appellant’s conviction under P.D. No. 1866 for unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition.
Double Jeopardy Claim
- Legal principle: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense. Different offenses arising from the same act(s), however, may be prosecuted separately.
- Application: The Court held that unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm (a special statutory offense under P.D. No. 1866) and murder under the Revised Penal Code are distinct offenses. The filing of separate informations for possession and for murder did not, in itself, constitute double jeopardy.
- However, the Court found error in the trial court’s use of the “use of an unlicensed firearm” as a special aggravating circumstance for the murder conviction. The Court explained that while P.D. No. 1866 permits increasing the penalty for possession where the unlicensed firearm is used to destroy human life, the unlicensed character of a weapon is not among the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14, RPC. Moreover, Article 62 precludes taking into account aggravating circumstances that themselves constitute crimes specially punishable by law to increase the penalty under the RPC. Thus, the trial court erred in elevating the murder penalty on that basis.
Treachery (Qualifying Circumstance)
- Trial court’s findings supporting treachery: single-door, second-floor classroom that left the victim effectively trapped and defenseless; suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack; multiple shots fired to prevent defense or retaliation; appellant’s conscious design and firing while the victim lay sprawled and helpless; re-entry to fire again at a mortally wounded victim.
- Application: The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that treachery was present, so that the killing qualified as murder under the RPC.
Evident Premeditation
- Legal requisites for evident premeditation: (a) proof of the time when the offender formed intent to commit the crime; (b) acts indicating adherence to that determination; (c) sufficient lapse of time to allow reflection upon consequences.
- Application: Although there was evidence of prior animosity and appellant left and returned with a gun roughly fifteen minutes later, the Court found the record insufficient to establish the specific time of formation of intent and a sufficient interval for reflection entitling the prosecution to proof of evident premeditation. The Court therefore discarded evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.
Influence of Dangerous Drugs (B.P. Blg. 179, Sec. 17)
- Burden and proof: The prosecution must present competent medical or direct evidence to establish that the accused acted under the influence of a dangerous drug. Medical opinion in the record indicated testing for marijuana must occur within 24 hours for reliable detection; appellant’s medical exam was 14 days after the incident and negative.
- Testimonial evidence (students reporting seeing appellant smoke a hand-rolled item and calling it “damo”) was considered insufficient in the absence of competent medical evidence. The Court found that circumstantial factors pointed to passion or anger but did not qualify as reliable proof of drug ingestion. Consequently, the Court deleted the trial court’s finding that appellant acted under the influence of dangerous drugs.
Voluntary Surrender Argument
- Required elements: surrender must be voluntary and spontaneous, and typically involves the accused turning himself over to authorities rather than merely relinquishing a weapon.
- Application: The Court held that appellant did not voluntarily surrender himself: he gave the weapon to his brother (not a person in authority), was thereafter arrested by Capt. Lazo, and was effectively cornered inside the faculty room with hostages and surrounded by police. The conduct did not qualify as voluntary surrender for mitigation.
Contempt of or Insult to Public Authorities
- Trial court treated the crime as committed with contempt of or insult to public authorities, relying on the p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 238659)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported as 261 Phil. 728, Third Division, G.R. Nos. 76338-39, decided February 26, 1990.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines. Accused-Appellant: Renato Tac-an y Hipos.
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Criminal Cases Nos. 4007 (qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition) and 4012 (murder).
- Trial court decision promulgated 31 July 1986: convicted appellant in both Criminal Case No. 4007 and Criminal Case No. 4012 and imposed the penalty of death in both cases; ordered indemnities and damages and costs.
- Appellant signified intention to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately after trial court promulgation; case was also subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.
- Opinion in the Supreme Court delivered by Justice Feliciano; the Supreme Court modified and affirmed in part the trial court decision and imposed modified penalties. Concurrence noted from Fernan, C.J. (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.
Charges, Informations and Pleas
- Original information filed 18 December 1984 charging appellant with violation of Section 1, paragraph (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for unlawfully possessing an unlicensed SMITH & WESSON Airweight .38 revolver (Serial No. 359323) with five (5) spent shells and five (5) live ammunitions and alleging that such firearm and ammunition were used to shoot and kill Francis Ernest Escano III with multiple gunshot wounds to head and chest.
- Amended information for murder filed 11 January 1985 charging appellant with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 17 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 179, alleging that the killing was committed with evident premeditation, treachery, while acting under the influence of drugs, with cruelty, and with use of an unlicensed firearm; alleged damages to heirs to be proved at trial.
- Appellant entered pleas of not guilty to the informations.
- The two criminal cases were consolidated and tried jointly before the trial court.
Material Facts (chronology and context)
- Appellant Renato Tac-an was 18 years and 7 months old at the time of events; deceased Francis Ernest Escano III was 15 years old; both were third-year high school classmates at Divine Word College, Tagbilaran City; both were formerly close and members of the Bronx gang.
- Prior interactions: appellant had been to the Escano residence on one or two occasions; Francis’ mother noticed appellant had a handgun and advised Francis to distance himself; Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang; relationship soured after a quarrel in September 1984 involving Arnold Romelde and an incident taken to the principal’s office.
- Further deterioration occurred late November 1984 when Francis learned appellant and other Bronx gang members were looking for him allegedly to beat him up; first week of December 1984 graffiti appeared denigrating the Bronx gang and calling Renato “bayot,” which Renato attributed to Francis.
- On 14 December 1984: at about 2:00 p.m. Renato entered Room 15 for English III class, found Francis sitting on his scrapbook, kicked the chair; teachers Mrs. Liliosa Baluma and Mr. Damaso Pasilbas and classmates intervened and calmed the situation.
- Renato left the classroom during English III and returned approximately fifteen minutes later after going home to get a gun.
- Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas started at about 3:00 p.m. in Room 15 when Renato burst into the room, shut the door, raised a revolver and shouted “Where is Francis?”
- Sequence of shootings in Room 15 according to the record:
- First shot: hit a notebook, a geometry book and the armrest of Ruel Ungab’s chair.
- Second shot: hit the blackboard in front of the class.
- Third shot: hit the concrete wall of the classroom.
- Fourth shot: hit Francis on the head, causing him to fall; Ruel fell with him and was pulled out by a friend; Francis remained sprawled and bleeding profusely on the floor.
- After initial shooting, Renato left Room 15, paced between Rooms 14 and 15; teacher Pablo Baluma, apparently unaware who shot Francis, asked Renato to help Francis; Renato re-entered Room 15, closed the door behind him, said “So, he is still alive. Where is his chest?” and, standing over Francis, fired once more at Francis’ chest (bullet entered back below right shoulder and exited front above right nipple).
- Renato then left Room 15 with two students and locked Francis alone inside Room 15; teachers and students attempted to rescue Francis but could not open the locked door until a student climbed through a window; Francis was brought downstairs, rushed to Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital but died before reaching the hospital.
- After the shooting Renato proceeded to the faculty room, ordered teachers and students to lock the door and close windows (effectively holding them as hostages), reloaded his gun with five (5) bullets, and awaited arrival of Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Larino Lazo.
- Capt. Lazo called on Renato to surrender through a public address device but received no response; Renato turned his gun over to his brother through a balustrade opening; Capt. Lazo took the gun from Renato’s brother, entered the faculty room and placed Renato under arrest.
- Capt. Lazo deposited the recovered revolver (Airweight Smith & Wesson .38, Serial No. 359323), five live bullets removed from the revolver, and five empty cartridges turned over by Renato; ballistic examination by Supervising Ballistician Artemio Panganiban of the NBI Cebu showed the empty cartridge cases were fired from the recovered revolver.
Witnesses and Key Testimony
- Prosecution witnesses whose testimony was credited by the trial court and the Supreme Court:
- Mrs. Liliosa Baluma: teacher who testified to occurrences in English III classroom immediately before the shooting.
- Ruel Ungab: fifteen-year-old classmate who fell on the floor with Francis when he was hit.
- Mr. Damaso Pasilbas: mathematics teacher holding class when Renato burst in and fired.
- Napoleon Jumauan: sixteen-year-old classmate who was inside Room 15 and was about a foot away from Francis’ head when Renato re-entered and fired.
- Pablo Baluma: teacher who approached Renato and later asked him to help Francis.
- Capt. Larino Lazo: Philippine Constabulary officer who took possession of the firearm and arrested Renato.
- Supervising Ballistician Artemio Panganiban: performed ballistic examination and linked cartridge cases to the revolver (Ballistic Report, Exhibit “I”).
- Orlando Balaba: student who testified he saw Renato and Jaime Racho in the men’s room sucking smoke from a hand-rolled item which Renato said was “damo” (marijuana); testimony said to have been corroborated by two other prosecution witnesses (Benjamin Amper and Allan de la Serna).
- Defense evidence:
- Renato testified in his own behalf, claiming that Francis had approached him in class and threatened to get a gun and to go to Renato’s home to kill him and his family; no corroboration by other witnesses for alleged threats.
- Dr. Rogelio Ascona: defense witness who testified that to medically detect marijuana a patient must be examined within twenty-four hours of alleged smoking; Renato was examined 14 days after the incident with negative results.
Issues Raised on Appeal (as assigned by appellant)
- I. Whether the trial court erred in believing the prosecution’s version instead of the defendant’s version.
- II. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that Renato Tac-an was justified in shooting the deceased (complete self-defense).
- III. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that, at least, the defendant acted in incomplete self-defense.
- IV. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that P.D. No. 1866 is inapplicable because it was enforceable only during the martial law regime.
- V. Whether the trial court erred in placing the defendant twice in jeopardy by prosecuting him for violation of P.D. No. 1866 and also for murder alleging use of an unlicensed firearm.
- VI. Whether the trial court erred in not adjudging the defendant innocent of murder.
Legal Standards and Statutory Provisions Applied
- Self-defense requisites (Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code): claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel aggression; (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.
- Definition of unlawful aggression: must have actually broken out or be clearly imminent; oral threats or threatening posture do not qualify as unlawful aggression.
- Section 1, P.D. No. 1866 (as quoted in the record): unlawful manufacture, sales, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition is punishable; if homicide or murder is committed with use of an unlicensed firearm, penalty of death shall be imposed.
- Section 17, B.P. Blg. 179 (2 March 1982): when a crime