People v. Somooc
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberto Somooc was charged with Violation of Presidential Decree 1866, Section 1, Second Paragraph (Illegal Possession of Firearm with Homicide). The Information alleged that on June 27, 1989, in Quezon City, Somooc unlawfully possessed a homemade .38 caliber revolver and used it to shoot Rolando delos Reyes on the head, causing his death. Procedural History: Somooc pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented testimonies of eyewitnesses Elias Teologo and Romeo Teologo, M/Sgt. Salvador Sibayan, S/Sgt. Romeo de Guzman, and Dr. Emmanuel Aranas. The trial court convicted Somooc of illegal possession of firearm, aggravated by its use in a killing, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay P30,000.00 indemnity to the heirs of the victim. The Petition: Somooc appealed, assigning errors concerning the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses' credibility, failure to consider his testimony, and failure to entertain doubt as to his guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution witnesses could have realistically seen the shooting of the victim by the accused. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the alleged personal motives of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the appellant's testimony as "straightforward" and "unrebutted." Whether the trial court erred in failing to entertain doubt as to the guilt of the appellant and resolve it in his favor. Whether the penalty imposed and the award of civil indemnity were proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for illegal possession of firearm aggravated by its use in a killing, with the modification that the award of civil indemnity is deleted. The Court held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, but the death penalty prescribed by P.D. 1866 for the aggravated offense is unconstitutional. Civil indemnity for death is not recoverable in a prosecution for illegal possession of firearm, even if aggravated by a killing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and their ability to witness the shooting: The Court found that while there was an inconsistency in the testimony of Elias Teologo regarding the direction the gun was pointed (initially stating it was at the victim's back, contradicting his earlier statement and the medical evidence), this inconsistency alone did not invalidate his entire testimony. The trial court found his testimony credible in other material points, such as witnessing the confrontation, Somooc running away with a gun, and participating in the chase. Similarly, Romeo Teologo's testimony, placing him across the street at a distance of nine to ten meters, was deemed credible given the time of day (10:15 AM) and conditions of full visibility. His positive identification of Somooc as the shooter was corroborated by Elias Teologo on material points, and slight differences in recollection do not destroy the essential veracity of their statements. The Court reiterated the rule that findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to the highest respect. On alleged ill motives of prosecution witnesses: The Court found the appellant's claims of ill motives unpersuasive. The defense theorized that the Teologos testified against Somooc due to business competition in selling car accessories. The Court stated that even if such competition existed, it did not necessarily follow that the Teologos would perjure themselves. Similarly, the claim that M/Sgt. Sibayan's testimony was a cover-up for police brutality was unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized that absent clear and convincing evidence of false testimony and sufficiently powerful motives, such speculations are rejected. On the appellant's testimony: The Court found the appellant's testimony unconvincing. Somooc claimed that one Renato Buco was the actual shooter and that he (Somooc) ran away out of fear and was subsequently beaten by soldiers. However, Renato Buco was not presented as a witness, nor was any effort made by the defense to secure his testimony through a warrant or subpoena. The Court noted that Somooc's claims were mere allegations and speculations, lacking corroboration. On reasonable doubt: The Court found no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Elias Teologo and Romeo Teologo, were found to be positive and credible regarding Somooc's involvement in the shooting. The physical evidence, including the recovery of a firearm and ammunition from Somooc's person, further corroborated the prosecution's case. The appellant's attempt to shift blame to an absent individual was insufficient to create reasonable doubt. On the penalty and civil indemnity: The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of firearm aggravated by its use in a killing, as provided by P.D. No. 1866. However, it clarified that the death penalty prescribed for this aggravated offense in P.D. No. 1866 is unconstitutional under Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court deleted the award of P30,000.00 in civil indemnity, citing People v. Deunida, which held that civil liability arising from death is improper in a charge of illegal possession of firearm and should be pursued in a separate civil action or impliedly instituted with a criminal action for homicide or murder.
Main Doctrine
The offense of illegal possession of a firearm, as penalized by P.D. No. 1866, is aggravated when the unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of homicide or murder. However, the penalty of death, which was prescribed for such aggravated offense under P.D. No. 1866, cannot be enforced under Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Civil indemnity for death may be awarded in a separate civil action or impliedly instituted with a criminal action for homicide or murder, not with the charge of illegal possession of firearm.