GR 105289; (July, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105289 -90, July 21, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGELITO LUALHATI y DOMINGUEZ, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Angelito Lualhati was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela for the crimes of Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. 1866. The prosecution evidence established that on August 18, 1991, after an initial verbal altercation at a store, Lualhati and his companions followed factory workers Juliliuto Pentuyen and Ernesto Vertudazo. Lualhati, without provocation, slapped Vertudazo twice. As Pentuyen and Vertudazo walked away, Lualhati fired a shot in the air. When Vertudazo turned and faced Lualhati with his arms raised in surrender, Lualhati shot him in the chest, causing his death. Police later apprehended Lualhati and recovered a .38 caliber “paltik” revolver from his waistband.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Vertudazo was the aggressor who pulled a gun, and the fatal shot was fired accidentally during a struggle for its possession. The trial court rejected this defense, crediting the eyewitness accounts of Pentuyen and security guard Antonio Mariquit, and convicted Lualhati on both charges.
ISSUE
The issues were: (1) whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as Murder, and (2) whether the prosecution proved all elements of illegal possession of firearm.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Murder conviction but acquitted Lualhati for illegal possession of firearm. On the first issue, the Court found treachery (alevosia) was present. The attack was sudden and unexpected. The victim was unarmed and had already raised his arms in a clear gesture of surrender when he was shot. This manner of execution deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The attack was face-to-face, but the victim was rendered helpless and unable to mount a defense, satisfying the legal standard for treachery.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of illegal possession under P.D. 1866. While the existence of the firearm was established, the prosecution did not present any evidence—whether documentary or testimonial—to prove that Lualhati did not have a license or permit to possess it. Following precedent in People v. Damaso, the burden of proving this negative fact rests on the prosecution, and its failure to do so warrants acquittal. Thus, the conviction for Murder was upheld, but the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearm was reversed.