GR 128618; (November, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128618 November 16, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICISIMO NARVASA, JIMMY ORANIA and MATEO NARVASA, accused, FELICISIMO NARVASA and JIMMY ORANIA, appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania, along with the at-large Mateo Narvasa, were charged in three Informations. In Criminal Case Nos. 2648-A and 2646-A, they were respectively charged with aggravated illegal possession of an M-14 rifle and a .30 U.S. Carbine, the firearms allegedly used in killing SPO3 Primo Camba. In Criminal Case No. 2629-A, all three were charged with homicide for killing Camba. The prosecution evidence established that on February 6, 1992, councilmen Villamor Laderas and Ernesto Nagal, while patrolling, saw appellants and their group, with Felicisimo carrying an M-14, Jimmy a .30 U.S. Carbine, and Mateo an M-16. They reported this to policemen SPO3 Primo Camba and PO2 Simeon Navora. The group proceeded to investigate appellants’ house but were met with gunfire, resulting in Camba’s death. Appellants were later apprehended and tested positive for gunpowder burns. The defense presented denial and a counter-allegation that the victim’s group shot Felicisimo’s son, Arnel. The trial court convicted appellants of aggravated illegal possession of firearms, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, and considered the homicide as a mere element of the aggravated offense.
ISSUE
1. What crime or crimes are committed when a killing is perpetrated with the use of unlicensed firearms?
2. In the absence of the firearms themselves, may illegal possession of firearms be proven by parol evidence?
RULING
1. The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed is Homicide, qualified by the use of an unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance. The Court abandoned the doctrine in People v. Barros that treated the killing as a mere element of aggravated illegal possession. Applying the principle of pro reo, the Court held that Republic Act No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866, should be given retroactive effect as it is more favorable to the appellants. Under R.A. 8294, if an unlicensed firearm is used in committing homicide or murder, the penalty for the latter crimes is increased by one degree; the illegal possession is absorbed and not separately punished.
2. Yes, illegal possession of firearms may be proven by parol evidence even if the firearms are not presented in court. The Court affirmed that the prosecution can establish the existence and illegal possession of firearms through testimonial evidence, as was done here through the eyewitness accounts of Laderas and Nagal who identified the specific firearms carried by the appellants.
The dispositive portion of the Decision modified the trial court’s judgment. Appellants were found GUILTY of HOMICIDE with the special aggravating circumstance of using unlicensed firearms. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they were each sentenced to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and ordered to pay the heirs of Primo Camba P50,000 as death indemnity. The award of moral damages was deleted.