G.R. No. 73489 April 25, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, alias “Olit”, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, accused, CIC LORETO GAPASIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Loreto Gapasin, a Philippine Constabulary soldier, was charged with murder along with several others for the killing of Jerry Calpito on October 6, 1979, in Barangay San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. The information alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery, and the aggravating circumstances of ignominy, abuse of superior strength, and taking advantage of public position. The case underwent procedural complexities, including transfers between civilian court and military tribunal and the escape or non-arrest of several co-accused. Ultimately, trial proceeded primarily against appellant Gapasin. The prosecution presented eyewitness Alberto Carrido, who testified that while he, Rodrigo Ballad, and the victim were walking along a barangay road, appellant shot Calpito with an Armalite rifle, fired more shots after he fell, and a co-accused planted a .22 caliber revolver on the victim’s hand. The victim’s wife, Faustina Calpito, was threatened by other accused when she tried to approach. The autopsy revealed four gunshot wounds. Appellant claimed self-defense, testifying that he was on an official mission to investigate unlicensed firearms, that the victim drew a firearm and shot at him first, and that he fired back in response.

ISSUE

The primary issue hinges on the credibility of witnesses and the proper classification of the crime. Appellant challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses for being relatives of the victim and contended that the crime committed was homicide, not murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding appellant guilty of murder. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on witness credibility, stating it will not interfere unless the trial court overlooked undisputed facts of substance. The Court ruled that treachery was present, as appellant deliberately waited for the victim behind a fence and shot him from the side, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, thereby qualifying the killing as murder. Evident premeditation was proven and considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was properly appreciated, as appellant committed the crime using an officially issued Armalite rifle while a PC member. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. Considering the remaining generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, the proper penalty under the Revised Penal Code would have been death, but due to its constitutional prohibition, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award of damages was affirmed.