Case Digest SPL Report

[G.R. No. 133442. March 23, 2004.
]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RODRIGO
ALMAZAN, appellant.
Good evening judge good evening classmates tonight will be
discussing the case of People of the Philippines vs Rodrigo Almazan
with my partner Ma’am de leon
FACTS:
The Facts on the case is that on may 14, 1989 Felimar Apolinar and Loreto Apolinar were taking a bath
as well as washing clothes at the River about 45 meters away from their house. By around 9am they
decided to go home and trekked by a narrow trail. Suddenly, Rodrigo Almazan, who was armed, jumped
from the hill at Loreto’s right side. Almazan then aimed his gun at Loreto and shot him. Instinctively,
Loreto who was mortally wounded and bloodied fled towards to the house of the sequerras. Almazan,
who was still armed pursued Loreto. Felimar followed the two and shouting for help. Almazan ignored
her. Loreto managed to enter to the house and Almazan barged inside and saw loreto crawling towards
the wall. Felimar who managed to reach the first step of the stairs but was shocked when Almazan shot
Loreto for the 2nd time. Almazan then went out and threaten her before Felimar could reply Almazan
immediately fled the scene.
The Patrolman Juanito Blanes also testified that during on that day of the incident, as per his statement
he was on his way home when he met Almazan and when he arrived home he heard 2 gunshots, after a
couple of hours Francisca sequerra was running towards his home asking for help. He immediately
proceed to the scene and sent someone to report the matter to the Police Station.
Francisca sequerra testified as well that on May 14, 1989 She saw loreto who was then covered a lot of
blood. Afraid for her life, she did not help loreto. She opted to proceed to the place where there were
several people, and run towards to the patrolman blanes pleading for help. She never stated that she
saw almazan shot Loreto
The appellant-accused alibi as per his statement that during his entire duty, he never went outside of
camp, neither did he never ask permission to leave his post, or without permission to left camp.
The court convicted the appellant of murder but sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
The appellant-accused filed a supplementary brief with the Court, contending that the trial court erred
in convicting accused-appellant in light of evidence on record which raises reasonable doubt as to his
guilt.
ISSUE:
Is the appellant-accused contention tenable?

RULING:
We agree with the trial court and the CA that under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, the appellant is guilty of murder qualified by
treachery.
The crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No.
7659;
hence, the crime was punishable by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period
to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Further, under
Republic
Act No. 8294 amending Presidential Decree No. 1866, the use of an
unlicensed
firearm to commit homicide or murder is a special aggravating
circumstance in
the commission of the crime. The Information merely alleged that the
appellant
used a firearm to kill the victim. It did not allege that the same was
unlicensed.
Neither was it proved by the prosecution that the appellant had no
license to
possess the firearm. The appellant's lack of license to possess the
firearm is an
essential element of the circumstance. 57 Unless it is alleged in the
Information
and proved by the prosecution, the use by the appellant of an
unlicensed
firearm to commit murder is not aggravating. Besides, the crime was
committed before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Court and Rep.
Act No.
8294. Hence, the aggravating circumstance should not be appreciated
against
the appellant. 58
There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant to
the
crime, the medium period of the penalty imposed by the law for the
crime,
namely, reclusion perpetua, shall be imposed on the appellant. 59 In
this case,
the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On the civil liability of the appellant, he should be ordered to pay
exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim conformably to current
jurisprudence. 60
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision
of the Court of Appeals, dated February 27, 1998, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby ordered to pay P25,000.00 to
the heirs
of the victim Loreto Apolinar, as exemplary damages.

Case Digest SPL Report

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

Case Digest SPL Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. No. 133442. March 23, 2004.

Is the appellant-accused contention tenable?

You might also like