Case Summary (G.R. No. 76338-39)
Charges and Trial Court Decision
Renato Tac-an was charged with qualified illegal possession of a firearm under Section 1, paragraph (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1866, for possessing an unlicensed revolver and shooting Francis Ernest Escano III, resulting in multiple fatal gunshot wounds. Additionally, he faced a charge of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with qualifying aggravating circumstances including evident premeditation, treachery, cruelty, acting under the influence of drugs, and the use of an unlicensed firearm, based on an amended information filed on January 11, 1985. Renato pleaded not guilty, but both cases were consolidated and tried jointly, with the trial court eventually convicting him and sentencing him to death in both cases. The court also ordered Renato to pay various damages to the heirs of the deceased.
Facts of the Case
Renato Tac-an and the victim were high school classmates and members of the same gang who had a falling out. The relationship became hostile, culminating in a classroom incident on December 14, 1984, when Renato found Francis sitting on his scrapbook and kicked the chair. Days later, Renato left class, retrieved a firearm from home, returned, and entered the mathematics classroom, where he fired multiple shots at Francis despite the presence of other students and teachers. The victim was shot multiple times, including a fatal gunshot to the chest while sprawled on the classroom floor. Renato then locked Francis in the room and held several teachers and students hostage before surrendering his firearm but not himself. Francis died from his wounds before reaching the hospital.
Credibility of Prosecution’s Version of Events
The Court affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of the prosecution’s version primarily based on direct and positive testimonies from witnesses, including the teachers and classmates who witnessed the incident. The Court found no reason to doubt their accounts that implicated Renato as the shooter.
Rejection of Self-Defense Claim
Renato claimed he acted in self-defense or at least incomplete self-defense, arguing that Francis had threatened him prior to the shooting. However, the Court found no evidence aside from Renato’s testimony to support this claim. The alleged threats did not constitute unlawful aggression capable of justifying self-defense, especially since Francis was unarmed and no attack or imminent threat had materialized. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, lawful self-defense requires clear proof of actual or imminent unlawful aggression, reasonable means of repelling it, and no sufficient provocation by the accused—conditions absent in this case.
Applicability of P.D. No. 1866
Renato argued that Presidential Decree No. 1866 was only enforceable during martial law and thus inapplicable at the time of the offense. The Court ruled his argument unfounded, emphasizing that nothing in P.D. No. 1866 indicates it was limited to martial law duration. Rather, P.D. No. 1866, promulgated in 1983, aimed to consolidate and update laws on firearms and remains in full force independent of martial law. Accordingly, Renato’s possession of an unlicensed firearm violated this law.
Double Jeopardy Claim
Renato contended that being charged both for unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm and for murder (which involved use of the same firearm) constituted double jeopardy. The Court explained that these are distinct offenses: unlawful possession is a special crime under P.D. No. 1866, while murder falls under the Revised Penal Code. Since each crime has different elements and punishments, multiple charges arising from the same act do not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy. However, the Court found error in the trial court’s use of the "use of an unlicensed firearm" as an aggravating circumstance in the murder conviction, as it is not recognized as such under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
Presence of Treachery
The trial court found treachery as an aggravating circumstance, noting the attack was sudden and unexpected, the victim was defenseless and unaware, the weapon used was deadly, and after initially being incapacitated, Francis was shot again to ensure death. Renato argued the initial shots were warnings and that Francis had time to prepare. The Court upheld the finding of treachery, citing the single-door classroom setup, Renato’s blocking of the only exit, and repeated firing without allowing the victim to defend himself as clear evidence of treacherous killing.
Evident Premeditation
While the trial court credited evident premeditation as an aggravating factor, the Court concluded that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the exact timing of Renato’s decision to kill or that enough time elapsed for reflection. The brief interval (about 15 minutes) from Renato’s leaving the classroom to return with a gun was insufficient to establish evident premeditation, which under jurisprudence requires proof of intent formation, manifestation of intent, and sufficient time for reflection. Therefore, this aggravating circumstance was annulled.
Use of Dangerous Drugs as Aggravating Circumstance
The trial court regarded Renato’s alleged use of marijuana during the commission of the crime as a special aggravating circumstance under Section 17 of B.P. Blg. 179. However, documentary and medical evidence were lacking: Renato submitted a negative medical test performed two weeks after the incident, and testimony identifying the smoked substance as marijuana was deemed unreliable. Without competent direct evidence of drug influence at the time of the crime, the Court held the finding unsupported by the evidence and deleted this aggravating circumstance.
Voluntary Surrender Claim
Renato argued the trial court erred in not recognizing his voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The Court disagreed, holding that he surrendered only the firearm—not himself—and that the surrender was not voluntary but compelled by police presence while he held hostages. Thus, voluntary surrender did not exist under clarified jurisprudence and proper application of Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
Insult to Public Authorities
The trial court found that Renato’s actions showed contempt or insult to persons in authority because the victim’s teacher was present, and Renato held hostages thereafter. The Court held this was incorrect. Although teachers are considered persons in
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 76338-39)
Background and Charges
- Renato Tac-an was charged under two separate informations for events on December 14, 1984, in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
- Criminal Case No. 4007 charged him with qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Section 1, paragraph (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1866, alleging possession without a license of a Smith & Wesson Airweight .38 caliber revolver with serial number 359323.
- The firearm was allegedly used by Tac-an to shoot Francis Ernest Escano III, causing multiple gunshot wounds to the head and chest, which directly caused Escano's death.
- Criminal Case No. 4012 charged Tac-an with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 17 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 179, containing allegations of evident premeditation, treachery, cruelty, and acting under the influence of dangerous drugs.
- Both cases were consolidated and tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City.
- Tac-an pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Facts and Circumstances of the Killing
- Tac-an and Escano were classmates and members of the Bronx gang in high school but their relationship deteriorated due to prior quarrels and alleged hostility.
- On the day of the incident, Tac-an entered Room 15 holding a scrapbook but found Escano seated on Tac-an’s scrapbook, which angered him.
- After a brief confrontation and intervention by teachers and classmates, Tac-an left the classroom to fetch a firearm, returning approximately fifteen minutes later.
- Tac-an burst into the mathematics class, closed the door, drew a revolver, and fired multiple shots aiming at Escano.
- He fired at least four shots while Escano and other students attempted to escape and seek protection.
- After Escano fell wounded, Tac-an re-entered the room and fatally shot Escano again in the chest at close range.
- Tac-an then left, locked Escano inside Room 15, and held teachers and students hostage in the faculty room.
- Philippine Constabulary forces surrounded the faculty room; Tac-an eventually surrendered his firearm to his brother and was arrested.
- Escano was rushed to the hospital but died before arrival.
Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility
- The court heavily relied on testimonies from four witnesses: two teachers (Mrs. Liliosa Baluma and Mr. Damaso Pasilbas) and two classmates (Ruel Ungab and Napoleon Jumauan).
- The prosecution introduced ballistic evidence confirming that the cartridges were fired from Tac-an’s revolver.
- The court found the testimonies credible and consistent, upholding the prosecution’s version of the events over Tac-an’s defense narrative.
- Tac-an’s claim of self-defense was unsupported by evidence, particularly because no unlawful aggression by Escano was shown except uncorroborated verbal threats.
- Tac-an’s statements alleging threats were uncorroborated and, even if true, were not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression under Philippine jurisprudence.
Issues on Self-Defense and Incomplete Self-Defense
- Self-defense requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed to repel aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation.
- Verbal threats allegedly made by Escano did not amount to unlawful aggression as no actual or imminent attack occurred.
- Tac-an’s repeated firing in a closed classroom with many students present negated any claim to reasonable necessity in defense.
- The court held that Tac-an’s use of deadly force was unjustified and disproportionate, repudiating claims of complete or incomplete self-defense.
Applicability of Presidential Decree No. 1866
- Tac-an argued that P.D. No. 1866 was applicable only during martial law and hence did not apply after its lifting.
- The court ruled that P.D. No. 1866 had no