People v. Pajenado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 31, 1965, at approximately 12:00 noon, in barrio Dapdap, municipality of Las Navas, North Samar, the accused Openiano Pajenado was seen holding the deceased Carlos Tapong by the neck. Carlito Pajenado intervened, and together, they threw Tapong to the ground. While Carlito pinned Tapong down, the appellant drew a gun and fired at the victim. Carlito then fled, while the appellant remained at the scene until a policeman arrived and confiscated the firearm. Carlos Tapong died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Procedural History: The accused was charged with murder and illegal possession of a firearm before the Court of First Instance of Samar. After a joint trial, he was convicted of both offenses and sentenced accordingly. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding the classification of the crime (homicide vs. murder) and his guilt for illegal possession of a firearm.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused should be convicted of homicide instead of murder. Whether the accused should be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty and indemnity. The conviction for illegal possession of a firearm was reversed, and the accused was acquitted of that charge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of murder vs. homicide: The Court disagreed with the Solicitor General's view that treachery was not proven. The testimony of a prosecution witness indicated that the appellant had been waiting for the victim and immediately accosted him upon appearance, holding him by the neck. This, coupled with the subsequent act of throwing the victim to the ground with the help of another, was deemed sufficient evidence of premeditation. While treachery was not proven, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was admitted and considered. On the issue of illegal possession of a firearm: The Court agreed with both the appellant's counsel and the Solicitor General that the decision for illegal possession of a firearm should be reversed. The Court held that under Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution. A negative fact, such as the lack of a license, which is an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a firearm, must be proven by the prosecution. The Court cited previous cases (U.S. vs. Tria, People vs. Quebral) to support the principle that the prosecution must prove negative averments, especially when they are essential elements of the crime. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case that the firearm was unlicensed, thus the accused was acquitted of this charge.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the negative averment of lack of license in illegal possession of firearm cases, as it is an essential ingredient of the offense. Mere allegation is insufficient; a prima facie case must be established.