PEOPLE VS. QUIJADA(1996)Ponente: Davide, Jr.

Nature:

Appeal from a decision of the RTC Tagbilaran, Bohol

Facts:

On December 25, 1992, a benefit-dance/disco was held in Brgy. Tinago, Dauis,Bohol. A fight broke out
between the accused-appellant (Daniel Quijada) and the victim (Diosdado Iroy) due to the constant
pestering by the former of the latter’s sister.

In the evening of December 30, 1992, a benefit-dance/disco was once again held. It was attended by
Rosita Iroy and her brother Diosdado Iroy, among others.

The victim (Iroy) was sitting at a plaza hall approximately 4 meters from the dance hall when he was
approached from behind and shot in the head by the appellant (Quijada). The incident was witnessed by
the victim’s sister.

Iroy was rushed to the hospital by his companions but the injury proved to be fatal.

The firearm used by the appellant (Quijada) was found to be unlicensed as verified from a list of
licensed firearm holders in the province.

The appellant was charged in two informations:1.Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC and2.Illegal
possession of firearm in its aggravated form under PD 1866

The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both crimes.

Quijada appealed, and the case was initially referred to the 3rdDivision of the Court. However, as it the
case involves the issue of WoN to sustain the trial court’s judgment in conformity with a doctrine laid
down in previous cases, the appeal was referred to the Court en banc.

Issues:(Relevant to topic)

1. WoN aggravated illegal possession of firearms andmurder/homicide should be considered separate

offenses. (YES)(aka WoN the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Tac-an, and reiterated in People vs.
Tiozon, People vs. Caling, People vs. Jumamoy, People vs. Deunida, People vs. Tiongco, People vs.
Fernandez, and People vs. Somooc should be sustained)(Not so relevant to the topic but Sir might ask
about)

2. WoN the Court erred ina. Giving credence to the testimony of RositaIroy and Felipe Nisparanon
(NO)b. Disregarding the testimonies of the companions of Diosdado and the pictorial exhibit provided by
the defense re. the relative positions of Diosadao Iroy, Rosita Iroy, and their companions (NO)c. Failing
to consider that Rosita Iroy and Felipe Nigparanon had motives in falsely implicating Quijada (NO)Ruling:

Appeal is dismissed.