GR 112235; (November, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112235 November 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On July 27, 1992, off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was shot and killed on Burgos Street, Daraga, Albay. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Nestor Armenta, testified that he saw the accused-appellant, Elias Lovedioro y Castro, suddenly walk beside the victim, pull out a .45 caliber gun, and shoot him at point-blank range. Armenta, who was the appellant’s uncle and knew both men, stated that after the initial shot, one of appellant’s companions fired additional shots at the fallen victim. The assailants then took the victim’s service firearm and fled. The appellant was charged with and convicted of Murder by the trial court, which sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages.
On appeal, the appellant contended that the killing was politically motivated, arguing he was a member of the New People’s Army and that the act was done in furtherance of rebellion. He asserted that the crime of murder should be absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and that he should have been convicted only as a participant in rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, which would carry a lesser penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the killing of SPO3 Jesus Lucilo constitutes the crime of Murder or is absorbed by the complex crime of Rebellion.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court held that for a common crime like homicide to be absorbed by rebellion, it must be conclusively proven that the act was committed as a necessary means to, or in furtherance of, the rebellion. The gravamen of rebellion is a public uprising against the government, a crime of masses involving a collective intent to achieve political ends. In this case, the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the specific killing of Lucilo was perpetrated to advance a rebellion. The prosecution successfully established the elements of Murder through the positive identification by a credible eyewitness who had no ill motive to testify falsely against his own nephew. The attack was characterized by treachery, as it was sudden and afforded the victim no opportunity to defend himself. Since the political motive was not proven, the killing retained its character as a common crime. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings and the penalty imposed by the trial court.