People v. Barasina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 17, 1988, Fiscal Lino Mayo was shot and killed in the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound in Caloocan City. The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellant, Elias Barasina, was responsible for the shooting and was in possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber firearm. Barasina was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and murder. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Elias Barasina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of a firearm and murder. The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment for each offense under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, increasing the penalty for each offense to reclusion perpetua and ordering the accused-appellant to pay civil indemnity to the victim's heirs. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's affirmation of the trial court's ruling admitting his extrajudicial confession and finding him guilty despite allegedly insufficient evidence. He argued that his confession was inadmissible because he was not assisted by counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation and that the testimony of a prosecution witness should have been stricken from the records due to incomplete cross-examination.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession and waiver were admissible in evidence. Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Felipe Hamtig should have been stricken from the records. Whether the accused-appellant was guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and murder. Whether the accused-appellant was placed in double jeopardy by being charged with both murder and illegal possession of a firearm.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal possession of a firearm and murder. The Court ruled that the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals, which were reclusion perpetua for each offense, were proper. The civil indemnity to the victim's heirs was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession and waiver: The Court held that the extrajudicial confession and waiver were admissible. The constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation requires competent and independent counsel, preferably of the accused's own choice. However, the word "preferably" does not mean the choice is exclusive. In this case, the accused-appellant was assisted by Atty. Abelardo Torres, who was competent and independent, and there was no indication that the accused-appellant insisted on a specific lawyer of his choice before Atty. Torres was engaged. The claim that Atty. Romeo Mendoza was his chosen counsel was considered an afterthought. The presence of Atty. Torres during the execution of the documents, as testified by the investigator and Atty. Torres himself, satisfied the constitutional requirement. On the striking of witness testimony: The Court ruled that the testimony of Felipe Hamtig was correctly admitted despite the incomplete cross-examination. The right of confrontation is not absolute, and the Court may limit cross-examination if it serves the ends of justice. In this case, the witness had been partially cross-examined on material points, and the failure to complete the cross-examination was not attributable to the prosecution. The Court also noted that the defense failed to show how the witness's further testimony would have adversely affected the prosecution's case. The partial cross-examination was considered sufficient for the court to observe the witness's reliability. On the guilt of illegal possession of firearm and murder: The Court found sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant for both offenses. Multiple eyewitnesses positively identified the accused-appellant as the gunman. The .45 caliber pistol confiscated from him was proven to have fired the fatal shot, and he was not a licensed firearm holder. The autopsy report confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the head. The paraffin test results were positive for gunpowder nitrates on both hands, indicating he had recently fired a gun. On double jeopardy: The Court reiterated that double jeopardy does not attach merely by the filing of multiple informations. It requires that the first jeopardy must have legally attached, meaning the accused was either convicted or acquitted, or the case was terminated without his consent. In this case, the accused-appellant had not yet been convicted or acquitted in the first case when the second information was filed, thus, double jeopardy did not apply. The offenses of murder and illegal possession of a firearm are distinct and separate offenses, even if committed with the same unlicensed firearm.
Main Doctrine
The conviction for illegal possession of a firearm and for murder, when the murder is committed using an unlicensed firearm, are separate offenses, and the accused can be penalized for both. The right to counsel during custodial investigation requires competent and independent counsel, preferably of the accused's choice, but does not grant an exclusive right to a specific lawyer if other competent counsel is available and assists the accused.