GR 89823; (June, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89823 ; June 19, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUTROPIO TIOZON y ACID, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Eutropio Tiozon was charged with violation of P.D. 1866 (illegal possession of firearm) and Murder for the death of Leonardo Bolima. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of February 24, 1989, a drunk Tiozon visited the victim’s house. The victim’s wife, Rosalina, testified that she saw Tiozon show a gun to her husband, who toyed with it. The two men later left the house, and Rosalina soon heard two gunshots. Tiozon returned, covered in blood, and stated he had accidentally shot the victim. Police recovered the .38 caliber revolver and spent shells from the scene. The paraffin tests on both men yielded negative results.
The defense presented a different version. Tiozon claimed he was passing by when the victim called him, poked a gun at him, and a struggle ensued. He alleged that after they drank together, the victim left ahead of him. He later found the victim already shot, attempted to help, and panicked, throwing the gun away. The trial court convicted Tiozon of P.D. 1866 and Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Murder qualified by treachery and illegal possession of firearm.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal possession of firearm under P.D. 1866. The information alleged the firearm was “used with treachery and evident premeditation in shooting” the victim, which improperly complexed the two offenses. P.D. 1866 is a distinct crime, and its use in homicide or murder is not a qualifying element but a separate unlawful act. The proper charge should have been for the homicide/murder alone, or for illegal possession separately, not a complexed single charge.
On the murder charge, the Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established. The prosecution’s own evidence indicated the victim and accused were together and had been handling the gun earlier, suggesting a possible altercation. The suddenness of the attack was not proven, as there was no evidence on how the shooting began. The negative paraffin tests also weakened the case for a deliberate execution. Thus, the killing constituted Homicide, not Murder. The Court sentenced Tiozon for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.