FACTS:

This case involves the appellant, CIC Loreto Gapasin, who was found guilty of murder qualified by treachery in the Regional Trial Court. The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages to the heirs of the deceased. The information against the appellant stated that he, along with other accused, conspired and confederated together to attack and shoot the victim, Jerry Calpito, resulting in his death. The appellant, being a PC soldier, used an Armalite rifle issued to him and was accused of inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on the victim. The court found aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation, and a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The accused were all arrested and allowed to post bail bonds. However, the case was later transferred to the Military Tribunal under LOI No. 947, and the bail bonds were cancelled. The accused filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The records of the case were eventually transferred back to the trial court, and the accused were rearrested. Some of the accused escaped, and the trial proceeded against the appellant and another accused only. The appellant's motions for bail were denied, and he filed a motion to be transferred to the custody of his military commander, which was initially denied but later granted by the appellate court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to apply Section 4 of P.D. No. 1850.

2. Whether the prosecution witnesses were biased against the appellant.

3. Whether the claim of self-defense is valid based on the physical evidence.

4. Whether the crime committed should be considered murder or homicide.

5. Whether evident premeditation and treachery should be considered as aggravating circumstances.

6. Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position should be appreciated.

7. Whether the correct penalty is reclusion perpetua.

8. Whether the trial court correctly imposed moral, compensatory, and exemplary damages.

RULING:

1. The appellate court granted the petition and ordered the immediate transfer of appellant to the custody of his military commander.

2. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect by an appellate tribunal. The fact that the prosecution witnesses were relatives of the victim does not necessarily indicate bias, and in the absence of proof of ill motive, their relationship to the victim does not undermine their credibility.

3. The claim of self-defense is invalid based on the physical evidence.

4. The crime committed is murder.

5. Evident premeditation and treachery are considered as aggravating circumstances.

6. The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position is appreciated.

7. The correct penalty is reclusion perpetua.

8. The trial court correctly imposed moral, compensatory, and exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Appellate courts generally do not interfere with the credibility of witnesses and testimonies unless the trial court has overlooked undisputed facts that could have altered the result of the case.

• Translations of testimonies may not capture the fine nuances and meaning apparent to the trial judge.

• The relationship between witnesses and the victim does not automatically render them biased, and in seeking justice, it would be unnatural for them to impute the crime on persons other than those responsible.

• The claim of self-defense is belied by the finding of the trial court.

• Treachery is present when the means of execution give the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.

• Evident premeditation is proven when the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and reflection.

• Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance.

• Taking advantage of public position is considered as an aggravating circumstance.

• Voluntary surrender may be considered as a mitigating circumstance, but it is offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position.

• The appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua since the death penalty is constitutionally abhorrent.

• The trial court has the discretion to impose moral, compensatory, and exemplary damages.