FACTS:

The case involves a murder and illegal possession of firearms incident in Cebu City, Philippines. The appellants, Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos, were found guilty of murder and illegal possession of firearms by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. The victim, Alejandro Flores, was shot and killed by the appellants who were armed with handguns. The incident was witnessed by Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., a radio news reporter, who saw the victim running and seeking help after being shot.

The shooting incident occurred at the intersection of Bacalso Avenue and Urgello Private Road in Cebu City. The victim, a confessed drug user, was shot multiple times by a tall, thin man who arrived in a "Jiffy" vehicle. Appellant Astellero was one of the individuals who alighted from the "Jiffy" after it was blocked by police officers. Appellant Abriol was frisked and found to have a .38 caliber revolver on his waist and two .45 caliber pistols under his seat. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, and the autopsy revealed that he died from multiple gunshot wounds. Ballistic examination showed that the fired cartridge cases and bullets recovered from the scene matched the test projectiles fired from the weapons seized from the appellants. The appellants underwent a paraffin test which came out positive for gunpowder residues, and a chemistry test showed that the firearms had been recently fired.

The appellants claimed that they were merely witnesses to the shooting incident and were on a different errand before encountering the commotion on the road. The defense presented evidence suggesting that a .38 caliber firearm may have caused the gunshot wounds inflicted on the victim.

The appellants argued that the eyewitness did not personally identify them as the culprits and only gave a general description of the assailant. They also questioned the reliability of the paraffin tests conducted. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct testimony from the eyewitness.

The court acknowledged that the presence of nitrates, indicated by the positive paraffin test results, does not exclusively indicate the discharge of firearms. Appellants argued that the paraffin test alone should not be the basis for their conviction. Another expert witness contested the autopsy report, claiming that the size of the gunshot wounds indicated a different firearm was used. However, the original autopsy examiner clarified that the size of the wounds is not solely dependent on the firearm's caliber.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the observations of Dr. Cerna, using the autopsy report by Dr. Diola, that the gunshot wounds could not have been caused by a .45 caliber pistol, discredit the prosecution's case that the appellants were responsible for the victim's death.

2. Whether the testimony of P/Inspector Caser, the prosecution's ballistics expert, is reliable despite the alleged lack of knowledge and failure to take necessary photographs to support his findings.

3. Whether P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert.

4. Whether motive is an essential element of the crime of murder.

5. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody of the physical evidence.

6. Whether the red "Jiffy" seized by the police was the same vehicle used by the gunmen.

7. Is the totality of the circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction?

8. Did the trial court correctly qualify the killing as murder based on treachery and evident premeditation?

9. Whether the killing of the victim was qualified by treachery.

10. Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the firearms and ammunition is valid.

11. Whether appellants Astellero and Dosdos can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms.

12. Whether appellant Abriol's possession of the .38 caliber revolver was authorized.

13. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it found the appellants guilty of illegal possession of firearms?

14. Should the amendment to the law on the use of unlicensed firearms in murder or homicide be applied retroactively?

RULING:

1. The observations of Dr. Cerna do not discredit the prosecution's case. Dr. Diola explained during cross-examination that the size of the gunshot wound does not solely depend on the caliber of the firearm. There are other factors, such as the condition of the skin at the time of examination, that can affect the size of the wound. The testimony of Dr. Diola is supported by a medical expert and his findings were corroborated by Dr. Cerna. Appellants' claim that the .45 caliber handguns confiscated from them could not have been used in killing the victim is disproved by expert opinions.

2. P/Inspector Caser's testimony as a ballistics expert is reliable. An expert witness is someone who possesses special knowledge on the subject matter and has training and education in that field. The trial court has the discretion to determine if a witness is adequately qualified to give an expert opinion. In this case, the trial court found Caser's examination, findings, and conclusions reliable, even without photographs. The court emphasized that the examination conducted with the use of a microscope was sufficient. Caser's conclusion, based on his examination, deserves credit as the markings on the fired cartridges matched those recovered at the scene of the crime.

3. P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert based on his training and experience.

4. Motive is not an essential element of the crime of murder.

5. There was an unbroken chain of custody of the physical evidence.

6. The red "Jiffy" seized by the police was the same vehicle used by the gunmen.

7. Yes, the totality of the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction. Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict an accused if all the circumstances are consistent with each other, consistent with the theory of guilt, and inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. In this case, the evidence presented constituted an unbroken chain of events leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the appellants. The eyewitness description of the gunman matched one of the appellants, and the pursuit of the vehicle resulted in the discovery of firearms and positive paraffin tests on the appellants. Their bare denials were deemed unreliable given the strong evidence against them.

8. The trial court did not correctly qualify the killing as murder based on evident premeditation, as there was no evidence of deliberate planning and preparation by the appellants. However, it was proven that the killing was done with treachery. The means of execution employed denied the victim any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and the appellants had superiority in numbers and weapons.

9. The killing of the victim was qualified by treachery. The victim was defenseless and lying on the ground when he was deliberately shot multiple times, demonstrating a determined assault with intent to kill.

10. The warrantless search and seizure of the firearms and ammunition is valid. It was conducted as a search incidental to a lawful arrest after a fatal shooting and pursuit of a fast-moving vehicle. There was a reasonable belief by the police officers that the fleeing suspects had just engaged in criminal activity.

11. Appellants Astellero and Dosdos can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms. The prosecution presented evidence of the firearms recovered from appellants' vehicle and their lack of authorized ownership or possession. Appellants were not listed as licensed firearm owners, and the certification from the firearms division of the PNP Headquarters proved the second element of illegal possession.

12. Appellant Abriol's possession of the .38 caliber revolver was unauthorized. Despite his claim of having a valid Memorandum Receipt (MR), it was inapplicable since he was already a detained prisoner when the firearm was used in the shooting. Even if the MR was valid, it only authorized possession of the .38 caliber revolver and not the other firearms found in the vehicle.

13. No, the trial court did not commit reversible error when it found the appellants guilty of illegal possession of firearms. The trial court's findings of fact, which were supported by the evidence on record, are binding and conclusive upon appellate courts. Furthermore, conspiracy was established among the appellants, and the act of one is the act of all.

14. Yes, the amendment to the law on the use of unlicensed firearms in murder or homicide should be applied retroactively. Under People v. Molina and People v. Castillo, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is not a separate crime but a special aggravating circumstance. Therefore, appellants are guilty of murder with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms. However, the penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot be modified since the murder took place before the effectivity of the amendment to the law.

PRINCIPLES:

• The size of a gunshot wound does not solely depend on the caliber of the firearm used.

• Other factors, such as the condition of the skin at the time of examination, can affect the size of a gunshot wound.

• Expert testimony is admissible if the witness possesses special knowledge on the subject matter and presents authorities or standards upon which their opinion is based.

• The determination of the qualifications of an expert witness rests with the discretion of the trial court.

• An expert witness need not present comparative microphotographs to support his findings; examination under a comparison microscope showing similarity between the test bullet and the evidence bullet is sufficient.

• Motive becomes relevant to a conviction only when there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the crime.

• Minor lapses in transferring possession and custody of physical evidence do not mean that the evidence was tainted or tampered with; the presumption of regularity should prevail.

• Identification of the vehicle used by the gunmen in a crime can be established through the unbroken chain of custody and testimony of witnesses.

• Circumstantial evidence can be used to convict an accused if all the circumstances are consistent with each other, consistent with the theory of guilt, and inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence.

• Evident premeditation requires the showing of (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, (b) an act or acts manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and (c) a lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

• Treachery in murder requires (1) the means of execution employed giving the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (2) the means of execution being deliberately or consciously adopted.

• Treachery can be appreciated even when the victim is warned of danger if the execution of the attack makes it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.

• Valid exceptions to warrantless searches and seizures include consented searches, searches as an incident to a lawful arrest, searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws, searches of moving vehicles, searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders, searches where prohibited articles are in plain view, searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations, and "stop and frisk" operations.

• In a conviction for illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must prove the existence of the firearm and the lack of corresponding license or permit to possess it.

• The possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 is not limited to actual possession, control over the firearms is also sufficient to establish possession.

• Findings of fact of the trial court, when supported by the evidence on record, are binding and conclusive upon appellate courts.

• Conspiracy can be established when the act of one is the act of all.

• The use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is not a separate crime but a special aggravating circumstance.

• The amendment to the law on the use of unlicensed firearms in murder or homicide should be applied retroactively.

• To be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.

• Temperate damages may be awarded when the actual amount of loss cannot be proven with certainty but it is clear that the claimant has spent for certain expenses.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded when the killing is attended by a special aggravating circumstance and the public good demands it.

• Attorney's fees may be awarded in appropriate cases.