G.R. No. 178546 ; April 30, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MUKIM ELING y MAÑALAC, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On September 2, 1999, in Tictabon Island, Zamboanga City, Mohammad Nuh Tuttoh was seated on a bench outside his nipa hut, conversing with Alangan Sakandal. The accused-appellant, Mukim Eling, was inside the hut. Prosecution eyewitnesses, including Sakandal and Crispin Kaluh, testified that they heard a gunshot and saw Eling, positioned inside the hut, shoot Tuttoh from behind. The bullet entered the victim’s nape and exited his cheek, causing instantaneous death. Sakandal grappled for and seized the .45 caliber pistol from Eling, who then fled but was chased and apprehended by Kaluh. Forensic tests revealed gunpowder nitrates on Eling’s hands.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Eling claimed he was sleeping inside the hut when Tuttoh attacked him, allegedly over a personal grievance. He testified that they grappled for Tuttoh’s gun, which accidentally discharged during the struggle, hitting Tuttoh. The Regional Trial Court convicted Eling of Murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of Murder.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, giving utmost respect to their assessment of witness credibility. The prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were found to be clear, consistent, and credible, establishing that Eling shot the unsuspecting victim from behind while inside the nipa hut. This manner of attack ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, satisfying the criterion of treachery (alevosia) which qualifies the killing as Murder. The defense of accidental shooting was rejected for being inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence, especially given the trajectory of the fatal wound.
Regarding penalties, the Court applied the rule that the use of an unlicensed firearm in Murder is not a separate offense but is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance under Republic Act No. 8294 . Consequently, the Court modified the penalty by removing the separate conviction for illegal possession. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs but deleted the award of actual damages for lack of sufficient documentary evidence, replacing it with temperate damages. The decision of the Court of Appeals was thus affirmed with these modifications.