GR 134072; (June, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 134072-73; June 10, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CONSTANCIO CANDIDO y COLLARGA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Constancio Candido was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. The prosecution evidence established that on October 9, 1994, in a Quezon City carnival, Candido approached the victim, Nelson Daras, from behind and shot him three times, resulting in Daras’s death. Two eyewitnesses, Perlita Baldoza and Ruben Aliaga, positively identified Candido as the assailant. Immediately after the incident, pursuing police officers SPO1 Wilfredo Red and SPO1 Malang heard the shots, saw Candido fleeing while holding a gun, and apprehended him after a chase. They confiscated a homemade .38 caliber revolver with three spent shells and three live ammunition. A certification confirmed Candido had no license for the firearm.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Candido was merely a bystander who was wrongfully arrested. He alleged that after hearing gunshots, he saw a man running and was subsequently apprehended by the police, who then planted the firearm on him. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of both charges, sentencing him to death for Murder aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm and to imprisonment for Illegal Possession.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses credible, consistent, and positive. Their identification of Candido as the shooter was unequivocal. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for being weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, especially against the strong evidence of the prosecution. The manner of attack—shooting the unsuspecting victim from behind—constituted treachery, qualifying the killing as Murder.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the prevailing rule under Republic Act No. 8294, which provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of a crime, there is no separate offense of illegal possession; it is merely treated as an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, the Court set aside the separate conviction for Illegal Possession of a Firearm. The use of the unlicensed firearm was correctly considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in the Murder case. However, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua because the requisite vote for its imposition was not obtained. The Court also increased the civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.