G.R. Nos. 138972-73; September 13, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO MARQUEZ y BRIONES, JOSE MAGTIBAY, ANSELMO MAGTIBAY and NICASIO BACOLO, accused, EUGENIO MARQUEZ y BRIONES, appellant.

FACTS

The charges stemmed from a bus holdup on February 17, 1995. Appellant Eugenio Marquez, along with co-accused, boarded a JAC Liner bus in Sariaya, Quezon. During the incident, Marquez, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, announced a hold-up and poked his gun at the driver. SPO1 Rizaldy Merene, a passenger, drew his firearm but was shot by Marquez. Although wounded, Merene returned fire. The bus conductor, Joselito Halum, was fatally shot. Marquez and his companions fled. In Criminal Case No. 95-555, Marquez was charged with Frustrated Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. In Criminal Case No. 95-557, he was separately charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. 1866. The Regional Trial Court convicted him on both counts.
The defense presented a different version, claiming Marquez was merely a passenger who was mistakenly identified after a shootout between the holdup men and SPO1 Merene. He alleged that the gun was planted by the police. The trial court, however, found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO1 Merene and passenger Manuel Fleta credible, noting their clear and consistent identification of Marquez as the gunman who shot both the conductor and the police officer. The court convicted Marquez and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for the complex crime and a separate penalty for illegal possession.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. A secondary issue involves the propriety of convicting him for both the complex crime and a separate charge of illegal possession of firearm.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Frustrated Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide but acquitted appellant for Illegal Possession of Firearm. On the main issue of witness credibility, the Court reiterated the doctrine that the assessment of the trial court is accorded the highest respect, as it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and manner of testifying. The Court found no reason to deviate from this rule, as the testimonies of SPO1 Merene and Manuel Fleta were straightforward, consistent, and credible. Their positive identification of Marquez as the armed assailant who announced the holdup and fired the shots was deemed sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of denial and frame-up was weak and unsupported by evidence.
Regarding the second issue, the Court applied the prevailing rule under Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended P.D. 1866. The law provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of another crime, there shall be no separate offense for illegal possession; the use of the unlicensed firearm shall be treated as an aggravating circumstance. Since the information for the complex crime specifically alleged that Marquez was “armed with a caliber .38 revolver,” the use of the unlicensed firearm was absorbed as an aggravating circumstance in the conviction for Frustrated Robbery with Homicide. Thus, his separate conviction for illegal possession was reversed and set aside. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards for civil indemnity and actual damages were affirmed.