119. People v.

Gapasin
GR No. 73489 | April 25, 1994 | First Division

CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, alias "Olit", AMOR SALUDARES,
FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, accused, CIC LORETO GAPASIN, accused-
appellant.

Short Version:
Gapasin, as a member of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), shot and killed Calpito, suing an armalite rifle
duly issued to him. Aggravating circumstance of abuse (or taking advantage) of public position is
appreciated.

Facts: Armalite

Gapasin is a member of the Philippine Constabulary.

Prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, who was with the accused during the incident, testified:

2 pm Oct 6, 1979, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang after attending the
“pamisa” for Teppang’s deceased father.

Jerry Calpito, the victim, followed them.

While they were walking, Calptio was shot by Gapasin with an armalite rifle.

When Calpito fell to the ground, Calpito fired more shots at him.

One of Gapasin’s co-accused then, planted a .22 caliber revolver on Calpito’s left hand.

Faustina, Calpito’s wife, ran to her husband Calpito

Another of the co-accused pointed his gun at Faustina.

All of the accused warned everyone that they would kill any relative of Calpito who would come
near them.

Gapasin’s defense is as follows:

Invoked self-defense

He alleged that he was given a mission order to investigate a report re. unidentified armed men

He was told to get in touch with all of his co-accused so he can get better information re. the
unidentified armed men.

He found out that one of those men was Calpito.

He was supposed to confront Calpito at the pamisa, but his co-accused told him that it would
create a disturbance at the pamisa.
 They decided to confront him on the way home.

When Gapasin was able to see Calptio going home, Gapasin asked Calpito what was bulging at
Calpito’s waist.

Instead of answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired
twice at appellant, Calpito missed because Gapasin dropped to the ground to simultaneously fire
his armalite.

Procedural matters (not important):

 After the CFI had taken jurisdiction of the case, the case was subsequently transferred to a Military
Tribunal, by authority of LOI 947 and 1011. These vested the Military Tribunal with authority to
hear cases re. crimes against persons and property through the use of unlicensed firearms.
 Case was transferred to the Military Tribunal.
 Accused filed an MR on the ground that the LOIs were issued AFTER the crime was committed,
hence the CFIs still have jurisdiction over their case.
 General Oder 69 transferred the case from the Military Tribunal to the CFI.
 During the transfer, some of the accused were able to escape.
 The remaining accused still in custody were granted bail, except for Gapasin.
 This case involves only Gapasin.

RTC : Murder qualified by treachery, with the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, and the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position and evident
premeditation

Issue and Dispositive:

Is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position appreciated in this case? Yes.

Ratio:
This appeal hinges entirely on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses testimony:
 SC did not bother to interfere with the findings of the CFI
 These are generally accorded great respect
 The fact that the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the victim does not necessarily make them
biased and impair them

Claim of self-defense:
 Gapasin’s claim is disproved by the finding of the CFI that Caplito was shot by someone who was
standing on his RIGHT side.
 Gapasin’s version was that he was in FRONT of Caplito
 The physical evidence re. the gunshots disprove Gapasin’s story

Qualifying Circumstance:
 Treachery attended this case
o The employment of means of execution gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself
or retaliate
o The means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted

Aggravating Circumstances:
 Evident premeditation is also present
o There was proof that the act was preceded by cool thought and reflection
 o Prosecution was able to show that “the resolution to carry out the act during a space of
time is sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment”
 Taking advantage of public position
o Gapasin, as member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed a crime with an armalite
which was issued to him when he received his mission order

Circumstance not appreciated:

 Ignominy
o CFI ruled out ignominy as the autopsy shows no physical evidence that other injuries such
as bruises or contusions were inflicted after he was shot
o No evidence to show that Caplito was kicked after he was shot

Mitigating Circumstance:
 Voluntary surrender
o He surrendered to his superiors
o But this is offset with the aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public
position

The proper penalty is death accoding to RPC 248 and 64 (3), as only evident premeditation is appreciated.
But the Constitution does not allow the death penalty anymore, hence the penalty is reclusion perpetua.