Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40318:g-r-no-132214-august-1,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-zaldy-casingal&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:09:03+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZALDY CASINGAL, Accused-Appellant.
which caused the death of said Diosdado Palisoc as a consequence, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
The accused pled not guilty to both crimes. Trial proceeded in due course.
We disagree. This Court has previously ruled that R.A. 8294 is favorable to the accused, and should thus be retroactively applied in the present case. 37 It was thus error for the trial court to convict the accused of two separate offenses, i.e., Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions. The crime for which the accused may be charged is murder, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm.
"Q.	Do you know who shot Diosdado Palisoc?
Q.	When he fell down, what did you do?
A.	I called up a police, sir.
Q.	Before you called up a police, could you tell this Honorable Court the direction where the shot came from?
Q.	How were you able to recognize Zaldy Casingal whom you said was holding a carbine and proceeded (sic) to the house of Ating Galpaw (sic) after Diosdado Palisoc was shot?
A.	There was an electric bulb near the gate, sir.
A.	About seven (7) meters, sir.
Q.	And how far were you to (sic) Diosdado Palisoc when he was shot?
Q.	You mentioned Zaldy Casingal as a person whom you saw carrying a firearm/carbine after Diosdado Palisoc was shot, do you know this Zaldy Casingal personally?
Q.	Why do you know him?
A.	He is our neighbor, sir.
Q.	If he is now in (sic) courtroom, will you please point to him?
Q.	You said that you did not actually see who shot Diosdado Palisoc, is that correct?
Q.	After you saw Diosdado Palisoc shot, did you look to the direction where the shot came from?
Q.	And you saw a person running, is that correct?
Q.	When you said that you saw Zaldy Casingal bringing a gun, how far was he from the place where you were standing?
A.	At about seven (7) meters, sir.
Q.	You said that there was an electric bulb in the Sawat Elementary School, is that correct?
Q.	And this electric bulb was installed inside the school room?
A.	It is in (sic) the gate, sir.
Q.	How far is this electric bulb, Mr. witness (sic)?
Q.	And in the place where you saw Zaldy Casingal running with the gun, there was (sic) various obstruction on (sic) the illumination of that light, is that correct?
Cruz’s positive identification of the accused as the victim’s assailant is corroborated by several pieces of circumstantial evidence. Immediately after Cruz heard a gunshot, he saw the accused carrying a U.S. carbine caliber .30 and running towards the house of one Francisca Galpaw. The day after the shooting incident, carbine caliber .30 with serial number 5611988 with one long magazine and 30 rounds of live ammunition of the same caliber were seized in the house of Francisca Galpao. The paraffin test conducted upon the seized carbine and upon the accused yielded positive results. The ballistic examination also showed that the fired cartridge and slug found at the crime scene were the same with the cartridge and slug that were found in the house of Francisca Galpao and test-fired from the seized carbine submitted for ballistic examination. These pieces of circumstantial evidence point to the accused as Palisoc’s assailant.
However, we hold that the evidence to prove treachery or alevosia which will qualify the killing to murder is insufficient. To prove treachery, the following must be shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. 51 It is also the running case law that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack must be proven. Without any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the victim’s death unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated. 52 In the case at bar, prosecution witness Cruz testified on what transpired immediately after the killing of the victim. He had no knowledge of the circumstances before the shooting and the shooting itself. There is therefore no proof that the victim having opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Nor is there any evidence to show that the victim was unarmed. Even assuming arguendo that the attack is sudden, there is no evidence that the means of execution was deliberately adopted. 53 The finding of the trial court that the accused shot the victim several times does not find support from the evidence on record.
Evident premeditation cannot likewise be appreciated. There is evident premeditation when the following facts are proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the accused clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of sufficient period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime, to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. 54 The trial court appreciated this aggravating circumstance based on the accused’s testimony. A close scrutiny of the accused’s testimony, however, will show that he testified that it was not him but Payaoan who planned to kill the victim and clung to his determination to kill, and that there was sufficient interval of time between the premeditation and the execution of the crime to allow Payaoan to reflect upon the consequences of his act. There is no proof whatsoever with respect to the accused’s plan to kill the victim and when he conceived of such plan.
The subject certification does not fall under the exceptions. Hence, we cannot give any evidentiary value to the photocopy of the certification. 57 Neither did the prosecution present the testimony of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosive Unit to establish that the accused is not licensed to possess carbine caliber .30 with serial number 5611988. This omission is fatal to the prosecution. 58 In fine, the crime of the accused cannot be qualified as having been committed with an unlicensed, illegally possessed firearm.
Davide, Jr. C.J., Kapunan, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
1.	Original Records, p. 1.
3.	Original Records, p. 4; TSN, April 16, 1997, p. 3.
4.	TSN, supra, pp. 3, 9.
6.	Original Records, p. 4; TSN, supra, pp. 4-5.
7.	Ibid.; TSN, supra, p. 5.
8.	Original Records, p. 4; TSN, supra, p 14.
9.	TSN, November 21, 1996, p. 31; Original Record, p. 5; Exhibit "L" .
10.	TSN, January 15, 1997, pp. 43-44.
11.	TSN, April 16, 1997, p. 14.
12.	Original Records, p. 4.
13.	TSN, September 26, 1996, pp. 4-6.
14.	Id., pp. 9, 14.
15.	TSN, October 5, 1995, p. 5.
17.	TSN, September 5, 1996, pp. 7-10.
18.	TSN, June 18, 1997, pp. 11-13.
20.	TSN, July 4, 1997, pp. 2-3; June 18, 1997, p. 10.
21.	TSN, June 18, 1997, pp. 10- 11.
24.	TSN, July 4, 1997, p. 10.
26.	Original Records, p. 487; Exhibit "2" .
27.	Original Records, p. 488; Exhibit "3" .
28.	Original Records, p. 489; Exhibit "4" ; TSN, June 18, 1997, p. 21.
29.	TSN, July 4, 1997, p. 12.
30.	TSN, August 19, 1997, pp. 3-4; August 8, 1997, pp. 9-10.
31.	Original Records, p. 512; Exhibit "R" ; TSN, August 19, 1997, pp. 3-4.
32.	TSN, August 8, 1997, p. 3.
33.	Joint Decision, Regional Trial Court, Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada, presiding; Rollo, pp. 29-37.
34.	People v. Castillo, G.R. Nos. 131592-93, February 15, 2000, p. 5, citing R.A. 8294, sec. 1, par. 3.
35.	Id., p. 6, citing People v. Molina, 292 SCRA 742, 779-783 (1998).
36.	Rollo, p. 37; Joint Decision, p. 9.
37.	People v. Castillo, supra note 34, p. 6, citing Revised Penal Code, art. 22.
38.	Original Records, p. 4; Exhibit "P" .
39.	TSN, April 16,1997, pp. 4-5.
44.	People v. Gallarde, GR. No. 133025, February 17, 2000.
45.	Id., p. 8, citing Sec. 4, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People v. Abrera, 283 SCRA 1 (1997).
46.	Rollo, p. 33; Joint Decision, p. 5.
48.	People v. Dacibar, Et Al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000, citing People v. Solis, 291 SCRA 529, 539 (1998).
49.	252 SCRA 519 (1996).
51.	People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000, citing People v. Hubilla, 252 SCRA 471, 481 (1996); People v. Realin, G.R. No. 126051, 21 January 1999.
52.	People v. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000, citing People v. Nalangan, 336 Phil. 970, 975 (1997).
53.	People v. Geguira, Et Al., G.R. No. 130769, March 13, 2000.
54.	People v. Vitucio, Jr., G.R. No. 130667, February 22, 2000, citing People v. Armando Sarabia, G.R. No. 106102, October 29, 1999.
55.	People v. Geguira, supra note 53, pp. 25-26.
56.	Original Records, p. 456; Exhibit "K" .
57.	See People v. Dismuke, 234 SCRA 51 (1994), p. 60 and Bacaltos Coal Mines, Et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 460 (1995), pp. 474-475.
58.	People v. Cortez, Et Al., G.R. Nos. 131619-20, February 1,2000, citing Mallari v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 456 (1996), citing People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255, 261-265 (1996) and People v. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368 (1991).
59.	TSN, February 19,1997, p.8.
60.	Id., pp. 4-5; Exhibit "M-2" .

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 22
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.