People vs. Gaborne G.R. No. 210710, 27 July 2016 Perez, J. Facts
People vs. Gaborne G.R. No. 210710, 27 July 2016 Perez, J. Facts
2014067352
People vs. Gaborne
G.R. No. 210710, 27 July 2016
Perez, J.
FACTS:
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 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 a hospital. 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 RTC rendered a joint judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of the two charges of murder
with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and Frustrated Murder. The CA then affirmed the ruling of the
trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
Yes. The Court found that the circumstance of treachery should be appreciated, qualifying the crime
to Murder. 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.
Dr. Cordero 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.
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 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.