G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO2 LEONARDO K. JOYNO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant PO2 Leonardo K. Joyno was charged with Parricide for the death of his wife, Marivel Uy Joyno. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily through eyewitness Ruben Campaner, established that on the evening of March 9, 1994, the accused and victim were drinking at their home when a heated argument ensued. The altercation concerned the accused’s proposal to transfer their residence. When the victim commented that the accused’s parents were ill-mannered, the accused became angry, told her to keep quiet, and then shot her with his issued M16 Armalite rifle as she continued talking. The victim died from the gunshot wounds. The accused surrendered himself and his firearm to the police shortly after the incident.
The defense presented a contrary version, with the accused testifying as the lone witness. He claimed the shooting was accidental, occurring during a struggle over the firearm after his wife tried to take possession of it. He asserted he had no intent to kill. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position and dwelling, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. It imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of Parricide and properly imposed the penalty of death.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the finding of guilt, rejecting the defense of accident. The credible and consistent testimony of the prosecution eyewitness directly contradicted the accused’s claim. The witness’s account that the accused shot the victim after a heated argument was corroborated by physical evidence and deemed more reliable than the accused’s self-serving testimony. The Court found the essential elements of Parricide—that the accused killed a person and that the deceased was his legitimate spouse—were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court corrected the trial court’s appreciation of aggravating circumstances. The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not proven, as mere use of an issued service firearm, without proof that such position facilitated the crime’s commission, is insufficient. The circumstance of dwelling was also not appreciated, as the crime was committed in the conjugal home, which is also the victim’s dwelling. Only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for Parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63, when a mitigating circumstance is present and no aggravating circumstance offsets it, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Thus, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.