Facts:
On August 15, 1985, the Special Operations Group of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) identified a hideout of suspected bank robbers in Queen’s Row Subdivision, Bacoor, Cavite. Acting under Capt. Raul Castaneda’s supervision, the authorities halted a vehicle driven by Virgilio Balane near the location. Balane, who posed as a member of the PC, was taken to the suspect’s house with the officers. A confrontation ensued as police vehicles approached, resulting in an exchange of gunfire. Sgt. Monico Norcio was killed, while Cpl. David Noora and Pfc. Wilfredo Pagsanjan were injured. The suspects, Rolando Verchez, Romeo Aldave, Alfredo Mamuntag, Hector Mamuntag, and Gilbert Ang, surrendered after law enforcement requested backup from Bacoor Police Department. Confiscated from them were various firearms and ammunition. All accused individuals were charged with murder, frustrated murder, and illegal possession of firearms.
Upon arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty. After the trial in the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, Verchez and Aldave were found guilty of murder and illegal possession of firearms, while other defendants were acquitted. Verchez and Aldave appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, challenging the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of the police officers present during the confrontation and claiming their extrajudicial confessions were made under duress.
Issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the police officers present during the firefight.
2. Whether the extrajudicial statements of Rolando Verchez and Romeo Aldave violated constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
3. Whether the aggravating circumstance of disregard for the victim’s rank was properly applied.
4. Whether the conviction for illegal possession of firearms was warranted.
Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the credibility of police officer testimonies. The officers had no provocation or motive to fire indiscriminately at the house occupants since they were uncertain of the suspects’ identity. Therefore, the conduct of police in the operation was valid.
2. The Court held the appellants’ extrajudicial confessions were immaterial to the judgment since sufficient evidence existed independently, establishing their involvement in the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, there was no proof provided by the defense showing evidence of torture or maltreatment.
3. The Court dismissed the application of treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder due to insufficient evidence proving deliberate execution giving the victims no chance to defend or retaliate. Instead, it convicted the appellants of homicide. The court also removed the aggravating factor regarding the victim’s rank, as evidence suggested the appellants were unaware of the rank and failed to demonstrate intent to disrespect the victim’s status.
4. The Court affirmed the conviction for illegal possession of firearms, arguing the accused knowingly accessed and managed the firearms, contradicting claims of momentary possession and self-defense. The penalties imposed were modified following legal standards for homicide, frustrated homicide, and illegal possession of firearms.
Doctrine:
This case establishes that for treachery to qualify a crime as murder, the evidence must demonstrate intent to employ means deliberately ensuring no defensive response from the victim. Additionally, if the use of firearms is integral to a separate crime (such as possession of unregistered firearms), it must be explicitly cited in the charges to qualify for higher penalties.
Class Notes:
Key elements include:
– Homicide requires the absence of aggravating and qualifying circumstances such as treachery or premeditation.
– Frustrated Homicide penalty is one degree lower than consummated homicide.
– Illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 mandates proof of unlicensed possession and actual control of firearms.
Legal Citation: P.D. 1866, Section 1; Revised Penal Code, Article 249 (on homicide), Article 250 (on frustrated offenses).
Historical Background:
Set against the law enforcement’s crackdown on organized crime during the mid-1980s, this case reflects the government’s policy against illegal firearms amidst prevalent criminal activities. The confrontation and legal proceedings underscored the stringent application of laws against illegal possession, with heightened awareness for procedural rights within frameworks of martial law legacies and subsequent constitutional reform.
Leave a Reply