Date: MAY 16, 2025
TO: MATIAS, IANNE, RCRIM
Subject: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MAIDEN YULES SABILES y
DOMEQUIL
I. Authority
BLANCO, JOVERLYN A., RCRIM
II. Facts of the case
The scene of the crime was the then on-going construction site of Gaisano
Building in Caloocan city. On December 5, 2020, at about 8 a.m., Carlo
Mestica, a construction worker, was on the last rung of the stairs on the third
floor of the Gaisano building when he saw his co-worker Rodent
Martinez being closely pursued by accused Maiden Yules Sabiles, a lead man
in the same construction site. During the chase, the accused pointed a gun at
Martinez and shot him. Martinez, then about a half meter away from the
accused, fell on his knees beside a pile of hollow blocks.
Aaron Jhon De Leon, a mason working on the third floor of the Gaisano
building, heard the first shot. Initially, he did not pay attention to it as he
thought that the sound came from one of their construction’s equipment.
Seconds later, he heard a second shot and a person screaming: "Ouch, that
is enough!" When he looked towards the direction of the sound, he saw the
accused in front of Martinez, about a meter away, pointing a .38 caliber
revolver at the latter. Martinez was then leaning on a pile of hollow blocks,
pleading for mercy. The accused shot Martinez a third time despite the latter's
imploration. The accused then fled, leaving Martinez lifeless.[4]
The management of Gaisano reported the shooting incident to the police
authorities who immediately rushed to the scene of the crime. Jan Lim,
alias "Nognog," brother-in-law of the victim and a construction worker at the
Gaisano, volunteered to go with the police and assist them in locating the
accused.
The police, accompanied by Nognog, proceeded to Port area, Manila
where they saw the accused on board a vessel bound for Cebu. When they
boarded the vessel, Nognog positively identified the accused to the police as
the assailant. The accused attempted to escape when the police identified
themselves, but the police caught up with him. Upon inquiry, the accused
denied complicity in the killing of Martinez. The police found in his possession
a .38 caliber handmade revolver, three (3) empty shells and three (3) live
ammunitions. Further inquiry revealed that the accused owned the gun but
had no license to possess it. The police then took the accused into custody
and charged him for the murder of Martinez and for illegal possession of
firearm
III. Discussion
Wherefore, premises considered and finding the accused guilty of the
crimes of homicide and illegal possession of firearm aggravated by homicide
beyond the shadow of the doubt, he is hereby sentenced as follows:
1. For the crime of homicide, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of Twelve (12) years of prison mayor, as minimum, to
Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum;
2. For illegal possession of firearm, which is aggravated by homicide, he is
sentenced to a penalty of death;
3. To pay the family of his victim P50,000.00 as indemnity and another
P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
4. To pay the cost.
SO ORDERED On automatic review by this Court, appellant impugns solely
his conviction for illegal possession of firearm for which he was sentenced to
the supreme penalty of death.
IV. Finding
Prefatorily, we stress that although the appellant himself does not refute
the findings of the trial court regarding the homicide aspect of the case, the
Court nevertheless made a thorough examination of the entire records of the
case, including the appellant's conviction for homicide, based on the settled
principle that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review.
Our evaluation leads us to conclude that the trial court's ruling on the
homicide aspect is clearly supported by the records. Thus, we shall
concentrate on the appellant's lone assignment of error with respect to his
conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearm.
V. Conclusion
P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was
amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from lowering the
penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be
considered as a special aggravating circumstance. This amendment has two
(2) implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of
homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as
a special aggravating circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide
or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm)
is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be imposed on the
accused.
Prescinding therefrom and considering that the provisions of the
amendatory law are favorable to herein appellant, the new law should be
retroactively applied in the case at bar. It was thus error for the trial court to
convict the appellant of two (2) separate offenses. Homicide and Illegal
Possession of Firearms and punish him separately for each crime. Based on
the facts of the case, the crime for which the appellant may be charged
is homicide, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm, the correct
denomination for the crime, and not illegal possession of firearm, aggravated
by homicide as ruled by the trial court, as it is the former offense which
aggravates the crime of homicide under the amendatory law.
The appellant anchors his present appeal on the assertion that his
conviction was unwarranted as no proof was adduced by the prosecution that
he was not licensed to possess the subject firearm.
VI. Recommendation
We come now to the penalty. The crime of homicide is penalized by reclusion
temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attendant to
the commission of the crime, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed in its medium period, i.e., from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty shall be within the range
of prison mayor, i.e., from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years,
as minimum, to reclusion temporal in its medium period of from fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, as maximum.
In View of The Foregoing, the assailed Decision is MODIFIED. Appellant
Maiden Yules Sabiles y Domequil is found guilty of Homicide. She is
sentenced to imprisonment of from nine (9) years and four (4) months of
prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9)
days of reclusion temporal as maximum. However, the civil indemnity and
moral damages awarded by the trial court to the heirs of the victim in the total
amount of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) pesos are affirmed.
VII. Other (photo and video)
