People Vs Cabornay
People Vs Cabornay
People Vs Cabornay
~upreme Qtourt
;Jffilanila
FIRST DIVISION
Petitioner, Present:
GESMUNDO,CJ, Chairperson
CAGUIOA,
- versus - CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ
Respondent.
APR 2 8 2021
x------------------------------------------------
DECISION
ZALAMEDA, J.:
The Case
Antecedents
CONTRARYTOLAW. 4
3
Also referred in the records as Abadieza Gabelinio.
' Rollo, p. 37.
s Id.
' Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 211691
Las testified that she saw petitioner at the market tending to her stall
and corroborated petitioner's story that she went to her mother's house to
have dinner. 9 Meanwhile, Gabelino testified that she was roused from her
sleep due to a loud noise. When she looked outside, she saw Clarion and her
sons throwing stones at her roof The police then came and brought her and
Clarion to the police station where the police suggested that she file charges
against the latter. ID
7
Id at 38.
' Id
' Id
rn Id
11
Id at 38-49.
,1 Id
Decision 4 G.R. No. 211691
Ruling of the CA
13
Id. at 39.
" Id. at 40.
" Id. at 44.
16
Id. at26-31.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 211691
Petitioner also argues that if indeed she fired a gun at Clarion, there
would have been holes at the wall of her house or her window. 17 Finally,
petitioner highlights Clarion's testimony that both of the accused hid at
Gabelino's house after the shooting, contrary to what was proven during the
trial that Gabelino did not hide, but instead, actually boarded the police
automobile voluntarily. 18
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed
petitioner's conviction for illegal discharge of firearm.
We find no reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC and CA.
It is settled that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the
appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. Particularly, the
evaluation of witnesses' credibility is "best left to the trial court because it
has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the
trial. " 19
17
Id
1s Id.
19 Vil/arba;: Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
20 Republicv. Looyuko, 788 Phil. I (2016); G.R. No. 170966, 22 June 2016 [Per J. Perez].
Decision 6 G.R. No. 211691
As found by the RIC and CA, the prosecution was able to establish
the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Under the Revised Penal Code, the
elements of illegal discharge of firearm are: ( l) that the offender discharges
a firearm against or at another person; and (2) that the offender has no
intention to kill that person.2 1
Q: Madam witness, how far was your house from the house [of] the
private complainant Rebecca Clarion?
A: Also separated by a road.
Q: And you said that within that time you heard a gun burst and you
immediately went outside your house to look for your grandchild, is
that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And your grandchild at that time was just playing within your house,
is that correct?
A: She was playing in the house of Rebecca.
Q: So in other words, after you heard a gun burst you went to the house
of the private complainant Rebecca, to look for your grandchild, is
that what you mean?
A: Correct.
Q: And how long did it take you to reach the house of the private
complainant?
A: I arrived very quickly because I ran.
Q: Five minutes?
A: Yes.
21 Dado v. People, 440 Phil. 521 (2002); G.R. No. 131421, 18 November 2002 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
Decision 7 G.R. No. 211691
Q: Now, how far were you when you said you saw accused Letlet
Carpio pointing a gun towards the private complainant?
A: 3.5 meters.
Q: You also said that there were no more people at that time because
they ran away because they were afraid, is that correct?
A: Correct.
XXX
THE COURT
Q: Are you telling this Court that you were not afraid seeing the
accused Letlet Carpio holding a gun at that distance of 3 .5 meters
away from you?
A: I was not afraid for the sake of my grandchild who might be the one
shot.
ATTY. GUEVARRA:
Q: By the way where were you located, why were you not seen by the
accused?
A: Letlet was pointing the gun to Rebecca, I was behind Letlet.
22
Id
Decision 8 G.R. No. 211691
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
.. ,v.uIN S. CAGUI01cs~
ustice Associate Justice
s 59Wt)~
SA~UEL H. Gl_;;RLAN.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
G. GESMUNDO