J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS  LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

 DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the 29 July 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01183 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and shall suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility for parole and shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages; and of the crime of Frustrated Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven ( 11) years of Pris ion Mayor as minimum, to eighteen ( 18) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and shall pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

In the service of his sentence, appellant, who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 “Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder

The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 58

In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. 59 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. 60 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.61

In the case at hand, since it was proven that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder, 62 and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an aggravating circumstance thereof.

The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Damages and civil liability

This Court resolves to modify the damages awarded by the appellate court in line with the recent jurisprudence.63 Appellant shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm.

Appellant shall also be liable to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Frustrated Murder. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

scd-2016-0059-cinco

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0058: THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VS. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON (G.R. NO. 199180, 27 JULY 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHAT IS CONTRACT TO SELL; DOUBLE SALE; CONJUGAL PROPERTY) (BRIEF TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS. SIOSON)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated October 21, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94867 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NERI AND THELMA EXECUTED TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER A PARCEL OF LAND FOR AN AGREED PRICE. BUT THELMA  ONLY PAID PARTIAL. THEN NERI SOLD THE LAND TO SIOSON. WAS THERE DOUBLE SALE?

NO. BECAUSE THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY NERI AND THELMA WAS MERELY A CONTRACT TO SELL.

BUT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE OF SALE?

NO.

THE REAL CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT THE TITLE GIVEN, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.

WHAT IS A CONTRACT TO SELL?

IT IS A “BILATERAL CONTRACT WHEREBY THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER, WHILE EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY DESPITE DELIVERY THEREOF TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, BINDS HIMSELF TO SELL THE PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER UPON FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION AGREED UPON, I.E., THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.”

SUPPOSE THERE WERE TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER SAME PROPERTY WHAT IS THE RULE?

IF THE PROPERTY IS MOVABLE PROPERTY THE  THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE FIRST TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF IN GOOD FAITH.

IF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BELONG TO THE PERSON ACQUIRING IT WHO IN GOOD FAITH FIRST RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.

SHOULD THERE BE NO INSCRIPTION, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL PERTAIN TO THE PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH WAS FIRST IN THE POSSESSION; AND, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, TO THE PERSON WHO PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED THERE IS GOOD FAITH.

THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT SIGNED BY VIOLETA, SPOUSE OF NERI. CA SAID THE DEED OF SALE TO THELMA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID. IS CA CORRENT?

NO.

THIS IS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

FIRST, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOT 398-A, IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF “NERI DELOS REYES, MARRIED TO VIOLETA LACUATA,” AND SO WAS ITS MOTHER LOT, LOT 398.

IN METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. TAN,47 IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH FORM OF REGISTRATION IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE PROPERTY’S NATURE AS PARAPHEMAL. THAT THE ONLY IMPORT OF THE TITLE IS THAT NERI IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT BEING REGISTERED IN HIS NAME ALONE, AND THAT HE IS MARRIED TO VIOLETA;

AND SECOND, THE RECORD IS BEREFT OF PROOF THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED DURING NERI AND VIOLETA’S MARRIAGE -SUCH THAT, THE PRESUMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 116 OF THE FAMILY CODE THAT PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE MARRIAGE ARE PRESUMED TO BE CONJUGAL CANNOT APPLY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0058-thelma-rodriguez

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.