GR 112792; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 112792-93; October 6, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL TAGUBA y REYNOSO and JAIME TOLIBAS y CAMPOSANO, accused, RAUL TAGUBA Y REYNOSO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On September 1, 1992, appellant Raul Taguba, a security guard, and Jaime Tolibas were on a jeepney along Taft Avenue. Taguba, seated next to victim Amador Guina, announced a hold-up while holding a .38 caliber revolver. When Guina moved to resist, Taguba shot him. Taguba and Tolibas fled but were apprehended shortly by PO1 Fernando Dominguez, who heard gunshots and saw them running. Dominguez frisked Taguba and confiscated the firearm tucked at his back. The wounded Guina died en route to the hospital from a gunshot wound to the chest.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Taguba of illegal possession of firearm under PD 1866 and, together with Tolibas, of homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Taguba was sentenced for illegal possession to an indeterminate penalty and for the complex crime to reclusion perpetua. Taguba appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal possession and his guilt for homicide.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Taguba’s conviction for illegal possession of firearm and homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. On illegal possession, the Court found all elements present: Taguba possessed a firearm, and he failed to present evidence of license or permit. His defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence. The arrest and seizure were lawful as he was caught in flagrante delicto. However, applying the favorable retroactivity of RA 8294, which amended PD 1866, the penalty was reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period, as the unlicensed firearm was not used in committing homicide.
For the homicide, the Court upheld the conviction. The credible eyewitness testimony established that Taguba shot Guina during the hold-up attempt. The complex crime of homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm under PD 1866 no longer exists under RA 8294. Following the new law, the two crimes are separate. Thus, Taguba was correctly held liable for simple homicide, penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Considering the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, actual and moral damages, and loss of earnings to the victim’s heirs.