Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40383:g-r-no-126253-august-16,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-victor-m-macoy,-jr&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:05:12+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTOR M. MACOY, JR., Accused-Appellant.
"That on or about the 9th day of October 1995, at about 12:20 a. m., more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with an unlicensed firearm, with deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Joglyn Macoy, his son, by shooting him with said firearm, hitting the latter inflicting upon said Joglyn Macoy fatal wounds and as a consequence of which the latter died instantaneously.
"That on or about the 9th day of October, 1995, at about 12:20 o’clock A. M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there keep under his control and possession one (1) snubnose .38 caliber paltik revolver (Smith and Wesson) marked "EYR10995" with three (3) rounds of live ammunition and one (1) empty shell, which was used in the commission of the crime of Parricide, without first obtaining a permit or license therefor from a competent authority.
The prosecutor recommended no bail for the temporary release of accused Victor M. Macoy, Jr., in both cases.
Upon arraignment on November 8, 1995, Accused pleaded not guilty to both informations. 7 Thereafter, the two (2) cases were tried jointly.
When Joglyn went out to help his father, he commented that "foolish this DPS people damping [sic] soil which made the road muddy." Thinking that his son was blaming his barkadas from the DPS, Accused Victor angrily retorted in defense of his friends. A heated argument ensued between father and son. At this point, Cresenciano Marikit, Marilou’s younger brother arrived at the house and prevailed upon Joglyn to calm down. He invited his nephew to a nearby store, thirty (30) meters from his house.
Meanwhile, Accused went to his room and took from the aparador a belt bag, which contained a .38 caliber firearm. Marilou knew the kind of gun the bag contained because accused told her so 8 and she would often see accused get the gun from that bag to clean, and return it afterwards. 9 Accused Victor took the gun, tucked it in his waist and left the house. Marilou tried to persuade him not to leave the house, but accused walked out of the house.
Cresenciano Marikit positively identified accused as the assailant. At about 12:30 in the morning of October 9, 1995, he and Danilo Macasero were repairing his jeep outside his house at Lahinglahing, Mabolo, Cebu City. Victor and his musician-friends passed by. They were all drunk.
To prevent the argument from worsening, Cresenciano took his nephew out of the house and brought him to a nearby store, about thirty (30) meters from the house of the accused.
While Joglyn was still on the ground, Accused Victor fired a third shot, but the bullet got stuck again. Cresenciano approached the accused and wrestled with him for the possession of the gun. In the scuffle, Accused lost possession of the gun and it fell to the ground. Danilo Macasero picked it up and threw that the nearby canal. Joglyn was then brought to the Cebu Chong Hua Hospital, while Cresenciano dragged accused toward his (Cresenciano’s) house, twenty (20) meters from the scene of the crime.
At the time of his death, Joglyn Macoy was twenty seven (27) years old and worked as a newspaper correspondent.
Accused was arrested at his house after the policemen explained to him his constitutional rights. Accused admitted that he shot his son Joglyn Macoy. Later, Accused’s brother-in-law arrived and informed them that Joglyn was dead on arrival at the hospital.
With the accused in tow, the policemen went to Cebu Chong Hua Hospital to question other witnesses. There they saw Danilo Macasero, who informed them that he knew where the firearm used in the commission of the crime was. They went back to Gil Tudtud St., Lahinglahing, Mabolo, Cebu City. Danilo Macasero personally identified and turned over to the police the murder weapon, a .38 caliber revolver (paltik).
He claimed that at around 12:30 in the morning of October 9, 1995, he arrived home at Lahing-Lahing, Mabolo, Cebu City from a birthday party where he and his musician-friends played music.
Upon arrival, he had an argument with his son Joglyn Macoy over the muddy road leading to their house. Joglyn blamed him because the people responsible for the dumping of the soil on the road were his friends from the Department of Public Services (DPS), Cebu City. As their argument escalated, Cresenciano Marikit, his wife’s brother, arrived to intervene and he took Joglyn out of the house. Accused Victor did not know where his son and brother-in-law went.
Meanwhile, Accused decided to go out of the house and get some fresh air. Before leaving however, he got his gun, a .22 caliber revolver. His wife tried to prevent him from leaving the house and bringing the gun with him. However, he prevailed over her because there were many thieves lurking in the neighborhood.
Accused Victor was shocked by the fact that his son was shot. The people gathered in the store helped his son and brought him to the hospital. His mind went blank and he simply walked home.
Not long after, policemen arrived and he invited them in. He was asked if he shot his son, which he denied. Suddenly his brother-in-law, Cresenciano Marikit, arrived and said that his son Joglyn was dead on arrival at the hospital. Accused commented that what happened to his son was regretful.
"The firearm (Exh. H) and the three (3) live ammunitions and one (1) empty shell (Exhs. I and I-1) are hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
"Cebu City, Philippines, August 12, 1996.
Though accused categorically denied ownership of the .38 caliber revolver presented as prosecution evidence, prosecution witnesses Marilou Macoy, Cresenciano Marikit and Danilo Macasero positively identified the gun as the weapon used by the accused on the night in question. No ill motive has been established against these witnesses that might have prompted them to incriminate the accused or falsely testify against him. "It is settled that when there is no showing that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that the witnesses were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit. Testimonies of witnesses who have no motive or reason to falsify or perjure their testimonies should be given credence." 34 Their narration of what exactly transpired on that fateful night was consistent and corroborative of each other’s testimony.
Considering that, as alleged by accused, many people were gathered at the store when the shooting incident occurred, how come that no one saw his brother-in-law was armed with a gun. This leaves us with no other conclusion than that accused Victor concocted the two-gun theory to avoid criminal liability.
Hence, Accused’s defense of denial must fail. In fact, Accused admitted his presence at the scene of the crime.
Further, in line with this Court’s ruling in People v. Valdez, 40 "in so far as this particular provision of Republic Act No. 8294 is not beneficial to accused-appellant because it unduly aggravates the crime, this new law will not be given retroactive application, lest it might acquire the character of an ex-post facto law." The application of the cited provision of the new law would not be beneficial to the accused, as it would increase the penalty for parricide from reclusion perpetua to death.
The trial court, therefore, correctly found accused Victor Macoy, Jr. y Midal guilty of parricide. The crime has been duly established by the prosecution. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The two penalties being indivisible, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. 41 The court a quo properly meted the proper penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Court dismisses Criminal Case NO. CBU-39640 for violation of Presidential Decree NO. 1866. Costs de oficio.
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., took no part.
Consequently, the illegal possession of firearm must remain as a separate offense. Hence, appellant must have to be penalized for illegal possession of firearm. However, it is the reduced penalty therefor under R.A. No. 8294 that should be imposed. The law can be given retroactive effect since that would result to appellant’s advantage.
1.	In Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-39639 and CBU-39640, Decision promulgated on August 12, 1996, Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr., presiding.
2.	Criminal Case No. CBU-39639.
3.	Criminal Case No. CBU-39640.
4.	Trial Court Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 1; Criminal Case No. CBU-39640, p. 1.
5.	Trial Court Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 7.
6.	Trial Court Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39640, p. 9.
7.	Trial Court Record, Criminal Case No. CBU-39639, p. 13.
8.	TSN, January 10, 1996, p. 14.
9.	TSN, ibid., pp. 5-6.
10.	TSN, ibid., pp. 10-17.
11.	TSN, ibid., pp., 7-8.
12.	TSN January 11, 1996, p. 4.
13.	TSN, ibid., p. 8.
14.	TSN, February 8, 1996, pp. 5-6.
15.	TSN, ibid., pp. 7-8.
16.	TSN, February 14, 1996, p. 3.
17.	TSN, February 13, 1996, pp. 18-23.
18.	TSN, February 8, 1996, p. 14.
19.	TSN, ibid., p. 15.
20.	TSN, February 13, 1996, pp. 4-5.
21.	TSN, ibid., p. 6.
22.	TSN, ibid., pp. 7-8.
23.	TSN, ibid., pp. 9-10.
24.	TSN, ibid., p. 11.
25.	TSN, March 26, 1996, pp. 2-6.
26.	TSN, ibid., pp. 7-9.
27.	TSN, ibid., p. 9.
28.	TSN, March 26, 1996, p. 13.
29.	This should read Criminal Case No. CBU-39639.
32.	Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 71-103, at p. 96.
33.	Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 156-198, at p. 196. (Emphasis supplied).
34.	People v. Radel Gallarde, G. R No. 133025, February 17, 2000.
35.	People v. Ramil Dacibar and Warlito Dicon, G. R No. 111286, February 17, 2000.
36.	292 SCRA 742 .
37.	295 SCRA 607 .
38.	298 SCRA 637 .
39.	People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611, 630 .
41.	People v. Lyndon Sañez y Lacson, G. R No. 132512, December 15, 1999.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.