G.R. No. 113822 -23 August 15, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL PABLO y LAZARO and RAMIL CASTILLO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Raul Pablo and Ramil Castillo were charged with Murder and Pablo was separately charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm. The charges stemmed from the killing of Aurelio Barcena on August 6, 1990, in Laoac, Pangasinan. Prosecution witness Marcelina Rebugio testified that she saw Pablo, Castillo, and several cohorts chase, restrain, and hold down the victim. She then saw Raul Pablo shoot Aurelio Barcena at close range with a .45 caliber pistol. Another witness, Menardo Barcena (the victim’s brother), heard gunshots, rushed outside, and saw the accused fleeing. He approached his dying brother, who identified Raul Pablo and his companions as the assailants.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Raul Pablo of both Illegal Possession of Firearm and Murder, and Ramil Castillo of Murder. Both were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay damages. They appealed, contesting the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the dying declaration. Pablo claimed self-defense, arguing the victim was the aggressor, while Castillo denied participation, alleging he was merely present.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearm beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court found the testimonies of eyewitness Marcelina Rebugio and the dying declaration recounted by Menardo Barcena to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Rebugio’s account was detailed and given without hesitation, and her relationship to the victim did not impair her credibility. The dying declaration, made by the victim under a consciousness of impending death, was admissible and corroborated the eyewitness testimony.
The Court rejected Raul Pablo’s claim of self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Pablo failed to substantiate these elements. The number of assailants, the act of chasing and restraining the victim, and the point-blank shooting negated any claim of self-defense or a sudden altercation. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, as the attack was swift and deliberate, rendering the victim defenseless. The Court also upheld the conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearm, as Pablo was caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm which he used in the murder.
Regarding Ramil Castillo, the Court found his presence and active participation in restraining the victim constituted conspiracy. By holding the victim’s arms, he rendered crucial aid, making him equally liable as a co-conspirator. The penalties and awards of damages were affirmed, with moral damages increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.