FACTS
In the afternoon of April 25, 1999, Gaspar, without informing his lawfully married wife Imelda, went to Norala, South Cotabato together with his father to attend the funeral of a relative.At that time, Gaspar and Imelda were not on speaking terms for about a week already. At around 11:30 p.m. of the same day and while Imelda and her two children Joramel and Cherme were already fast asleep, Gaspar returned home and pounded on their front door. The thudding sound roused the whole household. Apparently, Gaspar was mad because nobody immediately opened the door for him. He got even more furious when he entered the house and saw Imelda sleeping side-by-side with her grown-up children. Gaspar thus kicked Imelda on the leg while she was still lying on the floor and this started a heated altercation between them.
Still enraged, Gaspar went upstairs and returned with a .12 gauge shotgun. He loaded it and lit a kerosene lamp which he placed near the door of their room.He then aimed the .12 gauge shotgun at his wife and in front of Joramel and Cherme, shot Imelda on the head.
ISSUE
Whether or not Gaspar is guilty of the crime of Parricide under Article 246 of RPC as amended by Republic Act 7659.
RULING
YES, Elements of Parricide obtaining in this case are present, Factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, cannot be disturbed.
“Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.”
In this case the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish that Imelda was shot and killed by appellant based on the eyewitnesses’ account. Joramel and Cherme positively and categorically identified Gaspar as the one who shot and killed Imelda. Their testimonies corroborated each other on material details. Moreover, there is no showing that Joramel and Cherme were impelled by any ill motive to testify against Gaspar. It has been held that in the absence of any ill motives on the part of the witnesses, their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.On the other hand, Gaspar only offered his bare denial of the offense. However, “the Court had consistently stressed that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses.”
Anent the relationship of Gaspar and Imelda as legitimate husband and wife, the CA correctly observed that the same has been sufficiently established by the appellant’s admission that Imelda was his wife and by a copy of their Marriage Certificate presented during trial.
