G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Alberto Somooc y Buco, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that on June 27, 1989, in Quezon City, accused-appellant Alberto Somooc, an auto accessories installer, shot and killed Rolando delos Reyes following a dispute over soliciting customers. Eyewitnesses Romeo Teologo and Elias Teologo testified that after a heated argument was initially pacified, Somooc pursued delos Reyes, drew a homemade .38 caliber revolver, and shot him in the head. Somooc fled but was apprehended by soldiers. A search incident to arrest yielded the firearm from his waistline.
The prosecution presented a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit confirming Somooc had no license for the weapon. The medico-legal report confirmed the fatal gunshot wound. Somooc was charged with illegal possession of firearm aggravated by homicide under P.D. No. 1866. The Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm aggravated by homicide and in awarding civil indemnity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but deleted the award of civil indemnity. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the two eyewitnesses, to be positive, credible, and consistent on material points, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Somooc possessed an unlicensed firearm and used it to kill delos Reyes. The recovery of the firearm from his person immediately after the incident corroborated the illegal possession.
On the penalty, the Court sustained the imposition of reclusion perpetua. It noted that while P.D. No. 1866 prescribed a higher penalty, the imposition of the death penalty was prohibited under the 1987 Constitution at the time of the commission of the offense and the trial court’s decision. However, the Court ruled that the award of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity was improper. Citing People v. Deunida, the Court held that the offense charged was a violation of P.D. No. 1866, where the killing is merely a qualifying aggravating circumstance. No private interest is involved in this special law violation; thus, civil liability arising from death must be pursued in a separate civil action or in a criminal prosecution specifically for homicide or murder. The civil indemnity was therefore deleted.