G.R. Nos. 105199-200 March 28, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jesus Deunida y Enriquez, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Jesus Deunida was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 for the fatal shooting of Felipe Ramos, Jr. on December 31, 1990. After a reinvestigation, the prosecution moved to withdraw the murder information and amend the illegal possession charge to “Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm,” arguing the accused committed only one offense. The amended information alleged that on December 31, 1990, in Manila, the accused willfully possessed a .38 caliber revolver (paltik) without a license, which was used in the commission of homicide. The trial court granted the withdrawal and amendment. The accused initially claimed self-defense, leading to a “reverse trial” method. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitness Belen Fortes and P/Cpl. Meneleo Renon, showed that the accused, inside his store, aimed and shot the victim as the victim turned to run away after a verbal exchange. The accused later escaped but was arrested on June 12, 1991. The defense presented a different version, claiming the victim poked a gun at the accused, a struggle ensued, and the gun fired during the grapple. The trial court found the accused guilty of qualified violation of P.D. No. 1866 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with damages and confiscation of the firearm.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified illegal possession of firearm under P.D. No. 1866, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The Court held that when an unlicensed firearm is used in committing homicide or murder, the offense is qualified illegal possession of firearm under P.D. No. 1866, not a separate crime of homicide or murder. The accused’s possession of the unlicensed firearm was established beyond reasonable doubt, and his defenses of denial and alibi were rejected. The Court found the prosecution’s eyewitness credible and the physical evidence consistent with her account. The accused’s claim of accidental firing during a struggle was deemed unconvincing. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed as the homicide was not attended by any qualifying circumstance. However, the award of actual and moral damages was deleted because the civil action for damages was not properly instituted, as the information did not allege the civil liability arising from the homicide, and the private complainant did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action. The indemnity for death was also not awarded for the same reason. The confiscation of the firearm and ammunition in favor of the government was upheld.