Digest 4 - Art 6 RPC - People Vs Gaborne

Digest – Article 6 of the R.P.C.
(Sample 2)
PEOPLE
v.
LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO
GR No. 210710, 2016-07-27
Facts:
On 2 February 2007 at around 10:30 in the evening, Rey Perfecto De Luna (De Luna)
and Sixto Elizan (Elizan) entered a videoke bar at Barangay Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar. Noli
Abayan (Abayan), appellant and Joselito Bardelas (Bardelas) followed five minutes thereafter.
While Elizan and De Luna were drinking, singing and merely having fun, four successive
gunshots were fired through the window. Because of this, Elizan and De Luna were hit from
behind. Later on, De Luna and Marialinisa Pasana (Pasana) saw appellant, who was then
wearing a black t-shirt and a black cap, holding a gun aimed at their location. Pasana also saw
accused-appellant and Bardelas escape after the incident. Elizan and De Luna were brought to
St. Paul's Hospital at Tacloban City. Unfortunately, Elizan was pronounced dead upon arrival.
De Luna, on the other hand, survived. Appellant steadfastly denied the accusations. According
to him, he and his companions ordered for bottles of beer. However, when they tried to order for
more bottles, the waitress refused to give them their order unless they pay for their previous
orders first. While Abayan was explaining to the father of the owner of the videoke bar, appellant
and Bardelas went out to urinate, however, the waitress locked the front door. While standing
outside, he heard the waitress utter the words, "If you will not pay, I [will] have you killed, all of
you, right this moment. He also consistently contend that it was a man wearing black shirt and
camouflage pants who fired shots to the videoke bar, not him. The following day, appellant and
Bardelas were arrested and underwent paraffin test.
Issues:
We find that the degree of proof required in criminal cases has been met in the case at
bar. Appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of merit.
Ruling:
Elements of Murder and Frustrated Murder were established this Court finds that the
circumstance of treachery should be appreciated, qualifying the crime to Murder. According to
the Revised Penal Code: ARTICLE 248, Murder - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances: With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity in consideration of a price, reward or promise. By means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic,
or any other public calamity with evident premeditation. With cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse. Thus, the elements of murder are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused
killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Furthermore, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. The requisites of treachery are:(1) The employment of means
method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or
retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (2) Deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or
manner of execution. In this case, the hapless victims were merely drinking and singing in-front
of the videoke machine when shot by the appellant. The firing was so sudden and swift that they
had no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate. Furthermore, appellant's acts of using a
gun and even going out of the videoke bar evidently show that he consciously adopted means
to ensure the execution of the crime. In addition, the lower courts appropriately found appellant
liable for the crime of Frustrated Murder. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all
the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Dr. Angel Cordero M.D. categorically said that De Luna could have died because of the wounds
if the surgery was not conducted timely. Hence, appellant performed all the acts of execution
which could have produced the crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not
produce it by reason of a cause independent of his will, which is, in this case, the timely and
able medical attendance rendered to De Luna.
Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and
Frustrated Murder. The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an
aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059,
use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A.
No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal
possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as
an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. It is clear from the foregoing that where
murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not qualified illegal
possession but, murder. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a
separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where
murder was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable
since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. The intent of Congress is to treat
the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the
use of unlicensed firearm as a single offense. In the case at hand, since it was proven that
accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder, and that he was positively identified by the
witnesses as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the
commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an
aggravating circumstance thereof. The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have
merited the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No.
9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.

Digest 4 - Art 6 RPC - People Vs Gaborne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest 4 - Art 6 RPC - People Vs Gaborne

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest 4 - Art 6 RPC - People Vs Gaborne

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest – Article 6 of the R.P.C.

You might also like