People v Gaborne, GR 210710; July 27, 2016; Perez, J

FACTS:

Accused Luisito Gaborne was found guilty of crime of murder with the use of unlicensed firearm. He shot willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously Sixto Elizan. The victim had fatal gun shot wounds. This incident also happened to Rey Luna. RTC found Gaborne guilty, this was affirmed by CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Gaborne was guilty.

RULING:

YES.

The degree of proof was met. The legality of arrest should be made before entering plea. Elements for murder and frustrated murder was present. 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. Angel Cordero M.D. 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.

The defense of denial cannot be given more weight over a witness’ positive identification. It is doctrinally entrenched in our jurisprudence that the defense of denial is inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated. Such defense becomes unworthy of merit if it is established only by the accused themselves and not by credible persons. Thus, this Court agrees with the lower courts in giving the positive identification of the eyewitnesses more weight than appellant's defense of denial.

Paraffin tests are not conclusive. Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court.

Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test was extremely unreliable for use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; however, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder.

Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. It is clear from the foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not qualified illegal possession but, murder. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a single offense.

1. People v. Gaborne y Cinco.pdf

Download PDF • 77KB