[G.R. Nos. 133815-17.

March 22, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGARDO LIAD y
BEIGAR and JUN VALDERAMA y CASPE, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J .:
On the night of February 28, 1996, at around 7:00 in the evening, Lydia Cuenca was driving
her Tamaraw FX along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. Immediately behind the FX in his
own vehicle was Lydias husband Manuel. Seated beside Manuel in the car was the latters
employee, Larry Buseron. Manuel and Larry had just come from the store and were on a convoy
with Lydia on their way home.
Upon reaching the corner of Don Enrique Subdivision and Commonwealth Avenue, Lydia
made a full stop to make a U-turn. Three (3) men then approached her vehicle, banging on the
door to force it to open. Unsuccessful, the man on the left of the vehicle pulled out a gun and
pulled the trigger, hitting one of the windows as well as Lydias left shoulder. One of the men
also shot the other side of the vehicle but it hit Manuels car instead. Still unable to open the
FXs door, one of the men broke the window of the right door using the butt of a gun.
Finally succeeding, the men boarded the vehicle. Manuel heard another shot which hit his
wifes nape. Manuel bumped the rear of the FX, hoping to startle the culprits. The bump did not
startle them as Manuel hoped. The men sped off aboard the FX, heading north with Lydia. The
whole incident took around five (5) to ten (10) minutes.
Manuel got out of the car and tried to pursue the FX. Larry Buseron also wanted to help but
could not get out of the car, which was locked. Manuel went back to his car to follow the
FX. Alas, his car broke down. Manuel ordered Larry to go back to their store, presumably
owned by Manuel, and get help. Manuel for his part rushed to another store around a hundred
meters away also to ask for help. The people in the store went to the police station to report the
hold-up. Manuel went home to get another car and catch up with the FX.
In the meantime, Larry did not find anyone in their store so he went to the police station by
himself. A police officer told him that they would have to talk to Mr. Cuenca. Larry said he
would look for him.
Larry returned to the scene of the crime but did not find Manuel there. Larry waited and
looked after the car. After several minutes, Manuel arrived and instructed Larry to watch over
the vehicle. He informed Larry that Mrs. Cuenca was at Ilang-Ilang Street.
Meanwhile at Police Station 6, Commonwealth Avenue, the desk officer, SPO Bernarte,
received a telephone call from a concerned citizen informing them that a robbery-hold-up was in
progress along Commonwealth Avenue. The desk officer immediately dispatched SPO4 Raul
Espejon, SPO1 Ricardo Inamac, SPO2 Faustino and SPO1 Diaz. Before they could leave the
police station, however, their office received another report from Batasan Hills Barangay Captain
Arturo Ison regarding the same incident.
The police thus proceeded to Commonwealth Avenue and Ilang-Ilang Street where they saw
the victim, Lydia Cuenca, lying on the front door of the Tamaraw FX. SPO4 Diaz and SPO1
Faustino brought the victim to the hospital while the rest of the force proceeded to the Trans-
World Compound along Filinvest Road, about 400 yards from Ilang-Ilang Street. A security
guard as well as members of the barangay commando informed them that the three suspects were
in the compound.
Upon approaching the suspects, the police were met with a barrage of gunfire. The police
returned fire. The exchange lasted a few minutes until one of the suspects, a certain Baeng,
was hit. Baeng sprawled to the ground, still holding his .38 calibre paltik. Accused-appellants,
who were hiding behind the banana plants, then surrendered to the police.
SPO4 Espejon immediately apprehended accused-appellant Jun Valderama and disarmed
him of his .38 calibre paltik revolver. He also recovered Baengs gun.
SPO1 Inamac arrested the other accused-appellant, Edgardo Liad, and confiscated the
latters firearm, likewise a .38 paltik revolver. SPO1 Inamac also recovered the victims jewelry
and wallet, which was pointed to by Liad. The victims bag was wedged in the trunk of a banana
plant. The police brought the accused-appellants to the police station while Baeng, who was
gasping for breath, was rushed to the Fairview Hospital.
Back at Commonwealth Avenue, Manuel came upon his wifes FX at the corner of
Commonwealth Avenue and Ilang-Ilang Street, abandoned and bloody. A horde of people
milled around the vehicle. Manuel asked them where the victim was and a police officer
informed him that she was rushed to the Fairview Hospital. Manuel proceeded to the hospital and
arrived there only to find his wife of 30 years already dead. She was 53.
Suddenly, a wounded person accompanied by a police officer arrived at the
hospital. Manuel recognized him as one of the hold-uppers. He asked one of the police officers
what the mans name was. The police officers told him that, per reference to the mans ID, the
mans name was Baeng. Five (5) to ten (10) minutes later, Baeng, too, breathed his last.
Manuel headed to the police station where he recognized the two other persons who
accosted his wife in police custody. A police officer showed Manuel the articles they recovered
from the perpetrators, including Lydias blue shoulder bag, cash amounting to more than
P15,000.00, pieces of jewelry, bank books, calling cards, ATM cards and other personal items.
Dr. Alvin David, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
conducted an autopsy on the victims remains. From the examination, Dr. David concluded that
a gunshot wound was the victims cause of death. He found two gunshot wounds, one located at
the posterior chest at the back of the victim and the second on the victims left arm. The second
gunshot wound exhibited an area of tattooing, leading Dr. David to deduce that the muzzle of the
gun must have been less than 36 inches from the victim. Both wounds were fatal. Dr. Davids
findings are embodied in Autopsy Report No. N-96-42.
[1]

Elmer Nelson Piedad, also of the NBI, conducted a ballistic examination on the two (2)
bullets recovered by Dr. David on the victims body. His findings and conclusions are contained
in Report No. FID-123-92-29-96 (N-96-458) dated March 6, 1996:
1. To determine the caliber and type of firearm from which the evidence bullets marked LD-
1 and LD-2 were fired.
xxx
a. Evidence marked LD-1 is a deformed caliber .38 lead bullet and was fired through the
barrel of a caliber .38 firearm with riflings twisting to the right.
b. Evidence marked LD-2 is deformed caliber .38 copper coated lead bullet and was fired
from a caliber .38 firearm. No determination could be made as to the type of firearm
from which it was fired due to its deformed and scratched conditions.
2. Comparative examinations made between the evidence bullets marked LD-1 and LD-2
revealed that evidence bullet marked LD-2 does not possess sufficient individual
characteristics markings that could be used as basis for a definite identification due to its
deformed and scratched conditions.
[2]

Accused-appellants Edgar Liad and Jun Valderama were subsequently charged before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with Robbery with Homicide, defined and punished by
Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to Article 294 thereof. The
information in Criminal Case No. Q-96-65118 reads:
That on or about the 28th day of February, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of LYDIA
DY-CUENCA in the following manner, to wit: on the date and in the place
aforementioned while herein victim was driving her Tamaraw FX bearing plate No.
TPD-522, cruising Commonwealth Avenue near cor. Don Enrique Heights, Brgy.
Holy Spirit, this City, accused pursuant to their conspiracy, flagged down the victims
vehicle but when the latter refused to open her car, accused armed with handguns
fired two successive shots at the windshield, hitting the said victim, causing her to
sustain serious and mortal wounds which was the immediate cause of her untimely
death; that immediately thereafter, accused boarded the said vehicle and upon
reaching Ilang-Ilang St., Brgy. Batasan Hills, this City, abandoned the said car
afterwhich they took, robbed and carried away cash money in the amount of
P15,090.00 and valuable items all valued in the amount of P170,000.00 Philippine
Currency, belonging to LYDIA DY-CUENCA, all in the total amount of P185,090.00
to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said LYDIA DY-CUENCA.
[3]

Accused-appellants were also charged in the same court with one count each of Illegal
Possession of Firearm, defined and punished by Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,
[4]
as
amended. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-65119 against accused appellant Edgardo Liad, the
information alleged:
That on or about the 28th day of February 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused without any authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her custody and control one (1)
caliber .38 paltik snob nose revolver, without serial number, loaded with two (2) spent
shell and three (3) live ammunitions without first having secured the necessary
license/permit issued by the proper authorities.
[5]

In Criminal Case No. Q-96-65120, the information charged accused-appellant Jun
Valderama as follows:
That on or about the 28th day of February 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused without any authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her custody and control one (1)
caliber .38 paltik Revolver without serial number, loaded with two (2) spent shells and
three (3) live ammunitions, without first having secured the necessary license/permit
issued by the proper authorities.
[6]

Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to all the above charges.
The prosecution presented, among other evidence, the testimonies of Manuel
Cuenca,
[7]
SPO4 Raul Espejon,
[8]
PO3 Rudy Peralta,
[9]

Larry Buseron,
[10]
SPO1 Ricardo
Inamac,
[11]
Dr. Alvin David
[12]
and Elmer Nelson Piedad,
[13]
from which the foregoing narration of
facts was culled. The deceaseds son Manuel, Jr. was also presented to prove the civil liability of
accused-appellants.
[14]

Accused-appellants offered denial as their defense.
Accused-appellant Jun Valderama, 23, married, a vendor of garlic and other spices, and a
resident of Diliman, Quezon City, claimed that on February 28, 1996, he was in Batasan Hills
selling his wares. At around 5:00 p.m., Valderama was passing by a compound, the name of
which he could not recall. He noticed many people in front of the compound. Suddenly, a
police officer accosted him. The police officer frisked him and asked him where he
lived. Valderama said that he lived in Diliman. The police officer also asked Valderama where
he came from. Valderama replied that he had just finished vending his goods.
From the search conducted on Valderama, the police officer recovered
a fan knife from Valderamas pocket. Valderama explained in court that he carried the knife
for self-defense since he usually passes by the squatters area. He said that he did not intend to
use the knife for anything that is not good. The police officer then handcuffed Valderama to
the tricycle parked nearby, and told him to wait there. According to the police officer, they were
waiting for a person inside the compound. From the police officers uniform, Valderama was
able to identify the officer as Espejon.
About (30) thirty minutes later, Valderama heard two (2) loud gunshots and another one not
so loud coming from the compound, which was about thirty (30) meters away. After a while,
the police came out the compound dragging Edgardo Liad. The police brought Liad to the
tricycle where Valderama was handcuffed. They unlocked the handcuffs from the tricycle and
placed it on Liad such that Valderama and Liad were cuffed together. The accused-appellants
were then brought to the police station in Precinct 6.
Valderama was placed in a detention cell while Liad was brought to another room. Twenty
minutes later, the police took Valderama out of the cell and brought to the same room where
Liad was taken. The latter was placed in the detention cell.
Valderama claimed that while in the room the police tried to force him to admit that he was
a participant in the hold-up in Commonwealth Avenue. Valderama denied the accusation,
angering the four (4) police officers, all of who were not in uniform. They mauled and tortured
him. When Valderama could no longer endure the beating, he finally admitted the crime. It was
only then that the officers stopped torturing him.
In court, Valderama averred that he was not provided the services of counsel at the time he
was forced to admit the police officers accusations. He denied having anything to do with the
killing of Lydia Cuenca. It was not true that he carried a paltik revolver.
[15]

Accused-appellant Edgardo Liad, 26, a laborer and a resident of 194 Saint Andrew Street,
Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City, admitted his presence at the crime scene but denied any
participation therein.
He claimed that at around 2:00 in the afternoon of February 28, 1996, he was watching TV
at home when he saw his brother-in-law Felix Forteza together with the latters friend, Liberato
Quintoa. Quintoa was Liads neighbor from the province, whom he had not seen since 1992.
Liad asked the two to bring him to a movie since they had just received their
salaries. Forteza and Quintoa agreed to Liads request but Forteza said that they had to pass by
the office to get his pay. Forteza worked as a security guard in Capital Auto Supply, a business
owned and managed by Manuel Cuenca.
The three left the house, took a tricycle then a bus. Forteza left the two in a carinderia along
Commonwealth Avenue and proceeded to his employers office. When he came back, he told
them that they would have to wait a little longer since his employer was not yet there. Less than
an hour later, Liads companions suddenly blocked a white car in the middle of the street. Liad
remained in the carinderia. Forteza and Quintoa, who both carried firearms, shot at the
vehicle. Quintoa entered the vehicle and took the drivers seat while Forteza sat beside
him. Once inside, the two called Liad and told him to board the vehicle. Shocked and confused,
Liad did as he was told and sat himself at the right side behind the front seat. Liad did not flee,
thinking that people in the carenderia would point to him because they knew that he was
Quintoa and Fertozas companion.
The three then drove away and left the car at the corner of Ilang-Ilang Street and
Commonwealth Avenue.
Forteza and Quintoa then alighted the vehicle and told Liad to do the same. Liad refused,
however, so Quintoa poked a gun at him. He threatened, If you will not alight I am going to
shoot you. Liad did not know what to do or where to go so he just followed Quintoa. He did
not know where Forteza went.
Along Ilang-Ilang Street was a squatters area. Quintoa climbed into the compound
followed by Liad. People were chasing Quintoa and Liad, and Quintoa fired once at them. Liad
asked Quintoa why they did it. Quintoa told him not to ask too many questions. Marines in
civilian clothes then arrived and asked Quintoa and Liad, who were crouching, to
surrender. Quintoa finally stood up but, afraid, Liad did not. Liad heard shots and tried to lie
low.
Upon hearing calls for him to surrender, Liad slowly showed that he was unarmed. He told
them not to fire and that he did not have a gun. The Marines arrested Liad and the police
arrived. They took Liad from the Marines while Quintoa, also known as Baeng, was brought to
the hospital. As for Forteza, Liad said he did not see him again.
Liad corroborated his co-accuseds denial. He claimed that the first time he met his fellow
accused was while he (Liad) was at the compound. By then, Valderama was already
handcuffed. Valderama purportedly had no part in the incident that transpired on
Commonwealth Avenue.
[16]

On rebuttal, Manuel Cuenca refuted Jun Valderamas allegation that he (Valderama) was
not at the scene of the crime. Manuel categorically declared that he saw him and Liad there. He
further stated that Felix Forteza was not at the crime scene when the tragedy took place.
On March 2, 1998, the RTC rendered a decision convicting accused-appellants of robbery
with homicide and illegal possession of firearm, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
accused Jun Valderama and Edgardo Liad guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals by direct participation of the crime of robbery with homicide defined and
penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act
No. 7659 and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and, jointly and severally, to indemnify the heirs of Lydia Cuenca the
amount of P50,000.00 for her death, funeral expenses in the amount of P615,415.00
and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, plus costs.
Accused Valderama and Liad, are likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal possession of firearms as defined and penalized under Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and hereby sentences each
of them to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to
five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision correctional [sic].
SO ORDERED.
[17]

Accused-appellants thus turn to this Court, contending that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT BOTH
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS OF DECEASED
BAENG AND FELIX FORTEZA.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING BOTH
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR VIOLATION OF P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED
BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294.
[18]

The Court finds merit in the second assigned error but not in the first.
Accused-appellants submit that they were not part of the conspiracy in
the crime perpetrated against the deceased. They urge the Court to give credence to their
respective accounts negating any participation in the robbery and death of Lydia Cuenca.
The Court finds that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a
conspiracy between accused-appellants and the deceased Liberato Quintoa, also known as
Baeng. In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not
necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest.
[19]
Conspiracy may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime.
[20]

The following circumstances immediately before, during and after the robbery indubitably
show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob Lydia Cuenca: (1) Three (3) men
blocked the Tamaraw FX and banged on the door;
[21]
(2) One of the men shot the door of the
vehicle, hitting Lydia Cuenca;
[22]
(3) Another also fired his gun but hit Manuel Cuencas car
instead;
[23]
(4) One man smashed the FXs window to gain entry to the FX;
[24]
(5) The three men
then rode the vehicle to Ilang-Ilang Street;
[25]
and (6) Thereafter, all of them alighted the FX and
fled in the same direction to the Trans-World Compound.
[26]

Manuel Cuenca positively identified both accused-appellants as among the participants to
the crime. He recognized them at the police station
[27]
and pointed at them in open court.
[28]
On
rebuttal, he stated without any hint of hesitation:
Q. Mr. Witness, accused Jun Valderama testified that on the date when the crime was committed, he
was never present at the scene of the crime, what can you say to that?
A. It is not true, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because I saw them.
Q. Where did you see them?
A. They held up my wife and even killed my wife.
Q. Where did this happen?
A. Along Commonwealth Avenue corner Don Enrique Heights.
Q. How far were you when the crime was being committed?
A. I was following them.
Q. Your wife was in the car ahead of you and you were at the back?
A. Yes, sir, I was at the back.
Q. Mr. Cuenca, Mr. Liad also testified that he never participated in the commission of the offense on
that unfaithful night. What can you say to that?
A. It is not true, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because I saw them, they were three.
Q. Can you still remember their faces if you can see them again?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Kindly look around if the accused are here.
A. Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to a person sitting on the second row who identified himself as Jun
Valderama and witness pointed to another person sitting on the first row who identified himself
as Edgardo Liad.)
[29]

xxx
Q. Felix Forteza was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the incident?
A. I saw only three.
Q. You saw only three, Jun Valderama, Edgardo Liad and Baeng?
A. Yes, sir.
[30]

The testimony of Manuel Cuenca identifying accused-appellants as among the perpetrators
of the robbery deserves great weight. The absence of evidence to show any improper motive
why he should testify falsely against accused-appellants and implicate them in such a grave
crime indicates that there is no such motive and that his testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.
[31]
Accused-appellants self-serving denials cannot prevail over Manuel Cuencas positive
identification. In weighing contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight must
generally be given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the denials of
the defendants.
[32]

The testimonies of SPO4 Espejon
[33]
and SPO1 Inamac
[34]
that the police engaged in a
gunfight in the Trans-World Brokers Compound where accused-appellants were holed up and
thereafter confiscated paltiks from accused-appellants bolsters the testimony of Manuel Cuenca
that they indeed participated in the robbery of Lydia Cuenca. According to SPO1 Inamac, Liad
even pointed to him where the victims bag was.
[35]

Incidentally, we cannot give much credence to accused-appellant Valderamas claim that the
police merely picked him out from the crowd, handcuffed him to a tricycle, tortured him so he
would admit to the crime, in short, frame him for robbery with homicide. When police officers
have no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
[36]

It is true that neither Manuel Cuenca nor Larry Buseron specified each individual
perpetrators location in reference to the vehicle or their particular acts. Nevertheless, where
conspiracy is shown, the precise extent of participation of each accused in the crime is secondary
and the act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators.
[37]

The trial court, therefore, did not err in convicting accused-appellants of robbery with
homicide. Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part
in the homicide.
[38]

With respect to accused-appellants civil liability, the trial court correctly awarded the heirs
of Lydia Cuenca the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the victims death
[39]
and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
[40]

The trial court also adjudicated P615,415.00 for funeral expenses. The trial court did not
present in its decision its computation to justify such amount, although it did refer to Exhibits
G, H and I. Exhibit G is a receipt from La Funeraria Paz for funeral expenses
amounting to P290,000.00. Exhibit H is a receipt from Heavens Gate Memorial Gardens, Inc.
for P5,665.00 as interment fee and P550.00 for the gravestone.
Exhibit I, on the other hand, is a Deed of Sale dated 10 July 1996 showing that Heavens
Gate Memorial Gardens sold to Manuel Cuenca a Junior Family Estate consisting of 24 lots
for the sum of P217,200.00. The price of one lot, therefore, would cost only P9,050.00
(P217,200.00 divided by 24 lots).
Adding up the expenses evidenced by Exhibits G, H and I, we arrive at the following
amount:
Funeral expenses (Exhibit G) P290,000.00
Interment and gravestone 6,215.00
Cemetery lot 9,050.00
----------------
Total funeral and burial expenses P305,265.00
The decision of the trial court is thus modified accordingly.
Accused-appellants also contend that the trial court erred in holding them liable for illegal
possession of firearm, a position shared by the Solicitor General.
In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the requisite elements are: (a) the existence
of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does
not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The latter is a negative fact that
constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the
prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
[41]
The Court agrees
with accused-appellants and the Solicitor General that the prosecution in this case failed to prove
the second element.
The trial court nevertheless justified accused-appellants conviction for illegal possession of
firearm, thus:
As regards the charges of illegal possession of firearms, the Court finds the accused
Valderama and Liad guilty hereof. The prosecution did not have to prove that they
did not have license or authority to possess firearm because the firearms were Paltik
or homemade. In the case of People vs. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557, the Supreme Court
ruled:
Since a paltik is a homemade gun, it is illegally manufactured and cannot be issued a
license or permit, and hence it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed.
[42]

The trial court clearly misread People vs. Ramos. The trial courts rationale was precisely
the contention that the Court rejected in Ramos:
We do not agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that since a paltik is a
homemade gun, is illegally manufactured as recognized in People vs. Fajardo, and
cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is
unlicensed. This appears to be, at first blush, a very logical proposition. We cannot,
however, yield to it because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a
license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltikdispenses with proof that it
is unlicensed.
The above ruling was reiterated in People vs. Evangelista,
[43]
Mallari vs. Court of
Appeals,
[44]
People vs. De Vera, Sr.,
[45]
and People vs. Dorimon,
[46]
and People vs. P02 Rodel
Samonte.
[47]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is
hereby MODIFIED as follows:
In Criminal Case No. Q-96-65118, accused-appellants Edgardo Liad y Beigar and Jun
Valderama y Caspe are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with
Homicide and are sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-
appellants are ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of the deceased Lydia Cuenca the amount of
P50,000.00 as indemnity for her death, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P305,265.00 as funeral
and burial expenses.
In Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-65119 and Q-96-65120 for illegal possession of firearm,
accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.



[1]

Exhibit E.
[2]

Exhibit W-5.
[3]

Records, p. 2.
[4]

Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes.
[5]

Id., at 4.
[6]

Id., at 6.
[7]

TSN, August 7, 1996; TSN, August 13, 1996.
[8]

TSN, August 15, 1996; TSN, September 17, 1996.
[9]
TSN, September 16, 1996.
[10]

TSN, September 17, 1996.
[11]

TSN, September 18, 1996.
[12]

TSN, October 21, 1996.
[13]

TSN, December 18, 1996.
[14]

TSN, August 13, 1996
[15]

TSN, July 15, 1997; TSN, July 16, 1997.
[16]

TSN, September 19, 1997; TSN, November 24, 1997.
[17]

Records, pp. 158-159.
[18]

Rollo, p. 51.
[19]

People vs. Pulusan, 290 SCRA 353 (1998).
[20]

People vs. Balang, 236 SCRA 474 (1994).
[21]

TSN, August 7, 1996, p. 7; TSN, September 17, 1996, p. 9.
[22]

Id., at 8.
[23]

Id.
[24]

Id.; TSN, September 17, 1996, p. 10.
[25]

Id., at 11, TSN, August 15, 1996, p. 14.
[26]

TSN, August 15, 1996, p. 6.
[27]

TSN, August 7, 1996, p. 13; TSN, August 13, 1996, pp. 6-7.
[28]

Id., at 14.
[29]

TSN, January 21, 1998, pp. 3-5. Underscoring supplied.
[30]

Id., at 7.
[31]

People vs. Sandoval, 254 SCRA 436 (1996).
[32]

People vs. Guiamil, 277 SCRA 658 (1997).
[33]

TSN, August 15, 1996, p. 9.
[34]

TSN, September 18, 1996, p. 9.
[35]

Id., at 29.
[36]

People vs. Guiamil, supra.
[37]

People vs. Pulusan, supra.
[38]

People vs. Cerveto, 315 SCRA 611 (1999); People vs. Nang, 289 SCRA 16 (1998); People vs. Guiamil,
supra; People vs. Sandoval, supra.
[39]

See Civil Code, Art. 2206 in relation to current jurisprudence, e.g., People vs. Cerveto, supra; People vs. Merino,
321 SCRA 199 (1999).
[40]

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries x x x. (Civil Cod)
See also People vs. Merino, supra.
[41]

People vs. Dorimon, 321 SCRA 43 (1999); Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 456 (1996).
[42]

Records, p. 158.
[43]

256 SCRA 611 (1996).
[44]

Supra.
[45]

308 SCRA 75 (1999).
[46]

Supra.
[47]

G.R. No. 126048, September 29, 2000.