GR 106344; (January, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106344 January 6, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDMUNDO GOMEZ Y FRANCISCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Edmundo Gomez y Francisco was charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions with Homicide under P.D. No. 1866. The information alleged that on December 16, 1989, in Quezon City, he willfully and unlawfully possessed a homemade shotgun (sumpak) and used it to shoot Jun Divina y Surantos, inflicting fatal wounds. After trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, plus an indemnity of P50,000 to the victim’s heirs. The prosecution evidence established that the victim and his companions were drinking at a store when the accused-appellant arrived, joined them, and later punched the victim after the victim refused a drink. After a brief scuffle where the victim retaliated, the accused-appellant ran out, returned with a sumpak, and shot the victim in the back. Later, as the wounded victim was being helped, the accused-appellant reappeared, kicked and stepped on the victim, and fired point-blank, killing him. The incident was witnessed by Rolando Arquiza and Angel Cesario. The accused-appellant was apprehended by security guards with the sumpak, which was turned over to the police. The autopsy report confirmed gunshot wounds to the back as the cause of death. The defense interposed denial and alibi, claiming he was hit by an unknown person, heard a gunshot, fled, and was mauled by security guards.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not giving weight to the accused’s defense of alibi and denial.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the defense of alibi and denial, as these are weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive identification and categorical testimonies of credible eyewitnesses. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, noting that the witnesses testified in a forthright manner, their accounts were consistent, and they were in a position to clearly observe the accused-appellant during the well-lit incident. The prosecution conclusively proved that the accused-appellant killed the victim with an unlicensed firearm, thus violating P.D. No. 1866. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.