GR 109279; (January, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109279 . January 18, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OCTAVIO MENDOZA y LANDICHO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Octavio Mendoza was convicted by the trial court for the parricide of his wife, Cecilia, and for illegal possession of a firearm. The prosecution’s case was built largely on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the couple’s minor daughter, Charmaine. She recounted events on the night of November 11, 1988, detailing how she and her mother returned home to find the appellant inside, and later hearing an argument followed by a gunshot from the master’s bedroom, after which she saw her father standing over her mother’s body. The defense presented a different narrative, claiming an intruder from a smuggling syndicate committed the killing. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted Mendoza on both counts, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each offense.
ISSUE
The core issues on appeal were: (1) the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained in violation of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches; (2) the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for parricide; and (3) the propriety of convicting the appellant for both parricide and illegal possession of firearm under the then-recent amendment of the law ( Republic Act No. 8294 ).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for parricide but modified the penalties by setting aside the separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to government action. The incriminating memorandum receipt and mission order were discovered by the victim’s father, a private citizen, rendering the constitutional safeguard inapplicable and the documents admissible. On the second issue, the Court found the circumstantial evidence sufficient. The evidence presented—including the daughter’s testimony, the appellant’s presence at the scene, the lack of forced entry, and the recovery of the unlicensed firearm—formed an unbroken chain of events leading to the reasonable and moral certainty that the appellant was the perpetrator, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses. His alternative story was deemed a mere concoction.
Finally, applying the favorable retroactive effect of penal laws, the Court applied Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866. The new law provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in a killing, it is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder or homicide (or parricide), and not a separate offense. Consequently, the illegal possession charge was absorbed. The use of an unlicensed firearm was thus considered a special aggravating circumstance in the parricide. However, since the crime was committed in 1988 when the death penalty was constitutionally prohibited, the penalty remained reclusion perpetua, which could not be increased further. The decision was affirmed with this modification.