People v. Gomez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 16, 1989, at approximately 7:00 PM, the deceased victim, Jun Divina, was drinking with Rolando Arquiza, Ronnie Pesquesa, and Wilson Juliano in a store. The accused-appellant, Edmundo Gomez, arrived with companions and joined the group. An altercation ensued when the victim refused a glass of gin offered by the accused-appellant, whom the victim apparently detested. The accused-appellant punched the victim, who retaliated by hitting the accused-appellant's shoulder. The accused-appellant then fled, retrieved a home-made shotgun (sumpak), returned, and shot the victim in the back. As the victim lay wounded, the accused-appellant reappeared, kicked the victim, stepped on his head, and fired point-blank, killing him instantly. The accused-appellant was apprehended by security guards in possession of the shotgun, a live ammunition, and a spent shell. Procedural History: The accused-appellant was charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions with Homicide under P.D. No. 1866. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, assigning as errors the trial court's failure to give weight to his defense of alibi and denial, and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not giving weight to the accused's defense of alibi and denial. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua. The Court also affirmed the award of P50,000.00 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alibi and denial: The Court held that denial is a feeble defense that cannot stand against the positive testimony of eyewitnesses. The accused-appellant's defense of denial was found to be self-serving and could not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. The Court reiterated the principle that eyewitness testimonies, when forthright and categorical and unblemished by inconsistencies, should be given credence. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Rolando Arquiza and Angel Cesario were found to be credible and corroborated by the autopsy report, establishing the accused-appellant's culpability. On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had conclusively shown that the accused-appellant killed the victim with an unlicensed firearm. The testimonies of eyewitnesses Rolando Arquiza and Angel Cesario positively identified the accused-appellant as the perpetrator and described the use of a home-made shotgun (sumpak). The autopsy report corroborated the eyewitness accounts regarding the nature and location of the gunshot wounds, indicating they were inflicted from behind. The Court also noted that the accused-appellant was apprehended in possession of the firearm used in the commission of the crime. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, which penalizes homicide committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution having conclusively shown that accused-appellant killed the victim with an unlicensed firearm, the trial court did not err in finding him guilty of violating Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, which pertinently reads: If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed. The trial court properly reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.