G.R. No. 108430 September 14, 1994
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eduardo Tiongco y Lusong, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Eduardo Tiongco was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. The incident stemmed from a domestic altercation on March 20, 1991, in Quezon City. Tiongco, angered by his stepson Francis Penesa’s delayed response to an errand, physically assaulted him. After being restrained, Tiongco retrieved a .38 caliber revolver and a dagger. He then pursued Penesa, located him with the aid of a tricycle driver, and after a confrontation where he poked the gun at the victim, shot Penesa in the back as the latter fled. Tiongco was subsequently apprehended by a military officer who confiscated the firearm.
The prosecution established Tiongco’s possession and use of an unlicensed firearm through witness testimonies, including that of his wife who identified the weapon, and the responding police officer. The trial court found him guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery, and Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. 1866, sentencing him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms but modified the Murder conviction to Homicide. The legal logic centered on the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. For treachery to qualify a killing to murder, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted to ensure the victim’s defenselessness without risk to the aggressor. The evidence showed the killing arose from a sudden altercation. The victim was initially confronted face-to-face and was able to parry blows and retreat, indicating he was not entirely defenseless. The shooting occurred during a chase, not from a mode of attack consciously chosen to eliminate any possible defense. Thus, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder.
Regarding the illegal possession charge, the Court upheld the conviction. Tiongco’s possession of the unlicensed firearm was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to present the apprehending officer for identification of the gun was not fatal, as its identity and Tiongco’s possession were established through corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. The penalty for Homicide was set at an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The penalty for Illegal Possession of Firearms was affirmed.