G.R. No. 121668; June 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL TAÑEZA y DACAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joel Tañeza was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. 1866 for the shooting of Emerson Umandam. The prosecution presented eyewitness Aida Esgrina, the bakery proprietress, who testified that she saw Tañeza enter her bakery and shoot the sleeping Umandam multiple times. SPO1 Rogelio Docil, an off-duty police officer who heard the gunshots, responded and saw Tañeza pointing a gun at the wounded victim. Docil disarmed Tañeza and brought him to the police station, where Tañeza admitted he had no license for the homemade .38 caliber revolver. The victim, Umandam, gave a dying declaration to the police identifying Tañeza as his assailant before succumbing to his injuries.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the shooting occurred during a struggle after Umandam allegedly attempted to rob Tañeza at the bakery. Tañeza testified that Umandam, a former employee, attacked him with a knife, and he shot in self-defense. The trial court convicted Tañeza of Murder but acquitted him of the separate charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm, ruling that the use of an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder is absorbed as an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code and should not be prosecuted separately.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder and whether the separate charge for illegal possession of firearm was properly dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Murder conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the credible and consistent eyewitness account of Esgrina, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony detailed how Tañeza shot the unarmed and unsuspecting victim, who was either sleeping or in a defenseless position, which qualified the killing with treachery. The defense of self-defense was rejected for being unconvincing and unsupported by evidence; Tañeza failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The number and location of the gunshot wounds contradicted a mere struggle and indicated a determined intent to kill.
Regarding the firearm charge, the Court upheld the acquittal, applying the doctrine from People vs. Molina that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is not a separate offense but should be treated as an aggravating circumstance. Since the information for Murder did not allege the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, it could not be used to increase the penalty. The Court thus sentenced Tañeza to reclusion perpetua, affirmed the civil indemnity, and awarded moral and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs.