GR 104866; (January, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104866. January 31, 1994.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO CANCERAN Y GUMMARO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Romeo Canceran was charged with Murder for shooting Pribert Doroja on December 1, 1988, in Camiling, Tarlac. The prosecution’s version, as established during trial, is that on the evening of November 30, 1988, Canceran joined the victim Doroja, Arnold Bautista, and Edralin Melindez for a drinking session at Doroja’s boarding house. While they were drinking in a “tagayan” manner, Canceran suddenly drew a gun and shot Doroja in the head. Bautista testified he saw Canceran shoot the victim, and Melindez testified he saw Canceran stand up and put a gun back in its holster after the shooting. The two reported the incident to the PC. Paraffin tests conducted by the NBI yielded positive for nitrates on Canceran’s right hand and negative for Bautista. Francisca Doroja, the victim’s mother, testified that Canceran later apologized to her, saying the shooting was accidental. The defense claimed it was Bautista who accidentally shot the victim while playing with a gun. The Regional Trial Court convicted Canceran of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Romeo Canceran of Murder based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the positive identification of Canceran as the shooter by two eyewitnesses (Arnold Bautista and Edralin Melindez) was credible and convincing. The alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies (e.g., direction of the “tagayan,” which hand was used to holster the gun) pertained to minor details and did not refute the core fact of identification. Lack of motive was immaterial given the positive identification. The paraffin test results, indicating Canceran had recently fired a gun, were valid, and the defense failed to prove the casts were interchanged. The testimony of the victim’s mother about Canceran’s apology was corroborative but not essential given the eyewitness accounts. No violation of the right to counsel occurred, as the accused was assisted by counsel de oficio during arraignment and the paraffin test did not violate the right against self-incrimination. The shooting was sudden and without warning, qualifying the killing as Murder with treachery. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.