GR 127818; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127818 November 11, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO, JR., accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr. was charged with parricide for the death of his wife, Grace Nepomuceno. The information alleged that on May 2, 1994, in Manila, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to kill, attacked and shot his wife with a gun, inflicting a fatal gunshot wound. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses, including housemaid Eden Ontog, who testified that on the night of the incident, accused-appellant, who was drunk, arrived home, argued with his wife, got a gun from a drawer, and then a gunshot was heard after the victim said, “Sige patayin mo ako, patayin mo na kami ng anak ko.” Forensic chemist Mary Ann Aranas testified that paraffin tests showed the victim’s hands were negative for nitrates, while accused-appellant’s right hand was positive. Medico-legal examiner Dr. Floresto Arizala testified the victim died from a gunshot wound, with the trajectory upward from right to left, and that grappling for the gun was impossible given the wound’s characteristics. The defense presented only accused-appellant, who claimed the shooting was accidental. He testified that during an argument about financial problems, he took a gun intending to end his own life, and while their son walked between them, he raised his arm to prevent his wife from taking the gun, and it accidentally discharged. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of parricide, sentencing him to 40 years of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. He appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether the killing was accidental and exempt from criminal liability.
2. Whether the killing was a result of simple negligence.
3. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
1. The killing was not accidental. The Court found accused-appellant cannot invoke accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, as the act of drawing a weapon during a quarrel is unlawful. His claim that he and his wife grappled for the gun was belied by the expert testimony of Dr. Arizala, who stated grappling was impossible given the upward trajectory of the bullet and absence of close firing signs.
2. The killing was not a result of simple negligence. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the killing was intentional, based on the credible testimony of prosecution witnesses and the physical evidence.
3. The guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. Accused-appellant admitted shooting his wife and failed to prove any justifying circumstance. The voluntary surrender was appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply. The decision was AFFIRMED with modification that the sentence is simply reclusion perpetua.