GR 121462; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121462 June 9, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIPRIANO DE VERA, SR., accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Cipriano De Vera, Sr. was charged with Murder for the death of his 13-year-old nephew Gerardo Valdez, Homicide for the death of Perlita Ferrer, and Illegal Possession of Firearm. The incidents occurred around midnight of December 31, 1993, in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s siblings Neil and Jesusa Valdez, testified they saw De Vera shoot Gerardo with a long firearm locally known as a “sumpak” from a distance of about eight to nine meters. They also heard shouts that Perlita Ferrer had been shot. The defense presented alibi, claiming De Vera was elsewhere celebrating the New Year.
The Regional Trial Court convicted De Vera of the complex crime of Murder with Homicide and sentenced him to death. He was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged, particularly whether the killings constituted a complex crime and whether the qualifying circumstances for murder were present.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the prosecution successfully established De Vera’s guilt for two separate crimes, not a complex crime. The killing of Gerardo Valdez was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, leaving the young victim defenseless, thus constituting Murder. However, for the death of Perlita Ferrer, no qualifying circumstance was proven; hence, it is Homicide. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, finding the positive identification by eyewitnesses credible.
Regarding the illegal possession charge, the Court applied the rule that when an unlicensed firearm is used in homicide or murder, the former is absorbed as it becomes a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, the conviction for illegal possession was dismissed. The penalties were adjusted accordingly: reclusion perpetua for Murder and an indeterminate prison term for Homicide. The awards for damages were also recalculated based on the evidence presented.