G.R. No. 137274 -75; October 18, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Dan Ave y Tabobo, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Dan Ave, was charged with Frustrated Murder and Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The charges stemmed from a shooting incident on the evening of August 24, 1996, in Barangay Camantiles, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The prosecution evidence established that the victim Pedro Valenzuela, Jr., Atty. Napoleon Valenzuela, and others were having a drinking session near Pedro’s house, which was well-lighted. The appellant appeared and, from behind, shot Pedro in the head from about three meters away, killing him. When Atty. Valenzuela stood to check on Pedro, the appellant shot him in the abdomen. Atty. Valenzuela survived after immediate medical treatment. The appellant was also charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms, and the cases were consolidated. The appellant went into hiding for nearly two years before being arrested. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The defense consisted solely of the appellant’s testimony, claiming that he was forced to grapple for a firearm with one of the group, Calixto Valenzuela, and that the gun accidentally discharged during the struggle. The trial court acquitted him of illegal possession of firearm but found him guilty of Murder and Frustrated Murder. The court considered the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the murder case and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of Murder and Frustrated Murder and properly imposed the penalty, including the consideration of the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction for Murder and Frustrated Murder but modified the penalties. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, provided by credible eyewitnesses, sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of accidental shooting was rejected as implausible and uncorroborated. Regarding the penalty for Murder, the Court ruled that the use of an unlicensed firearm could no longer be treated as a special aggravating circumstance under Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended the law on illegal possession of firearms. Therefore, the death penalty imposed by the trial court was improper. The proper penalty for Murder is reclusion perpetua. For the crime of Frustrated Murder, the Court imposed an indeterminate prison term. The Court also affirmed the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and actual damages to the victims’ heirs, with modifications.