Scribd
Upload
564 views2 pages

CRIM1 - People V Gapasin (G.R. No. 73489. April 25, 1994)

The appellant Gapasin, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, shot and killed Jerry Calpito with an armalite rifle. The trial court found Gapasin guilty of murder qualified by treachery, voluntary surrender, and taking advantage of public position. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that treachery was present as Gapasin laid in wait and shot the victim from the side without opportunity for self-defense. It also affirmed the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position since Gapasin used his issued armalite in committing the crime. Voluntary surrender was offset by taking advantage of public position, so only evident premeditation remained as an aggravating circumstance.

Uploaded by

Christine Casidsid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
564 views2 pages

CRIM1 - People V Gapasin (G.R. No. 73489. April 25, 1994)

The appellant Gapasin, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, shot and killed Jerry Calpito with an armalite rifle. The trial court found Gapasin guilty of murder qualified by treachery, voluntary surrender, and taking advantage of public position. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that treachery was present as Gapasin laid in wait and shot the victim from the side without opportunity for self-defense. It also affirmed the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position since Gapasin used his issued armalite in committing the crime. Voluntary surrender was offset by taking advantage of public position, so only evident premeditation remained as an aggravating circumstance.

Uploaded by

Christine Casidsid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

People v Gapasin
G.R. No. 73489. April 25, 1994

TOPIC : Aggravating Circumstance—Taking advantage of public office


FACTS:
● APPEAL from RTC decision finding appellant guilty murder qualified by treachery, with the
attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating
circumstances of taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation.
● 10/6/1979: Alberto Carrido (prosecution witness) and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng
Teppang at 2pm after attending the pamisa for Teppang’s deceased father. Jerry Calpito (victim,
deceased) followed them.
● While they were walking, Calpito was shot by appellant Gapasin with an armalite rifle.
Thereafter, co-accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of
Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito (wife) ran to Calpito.
● Co-accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun
upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who would come
near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares’
group chased them.
● On the other hand, Gapasin invoked self-defense and testified that he was issued a mission
order to investigate a report regarding the presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio San
Jose, Roxas, Isabela. He was instructed to get in touch with Nicanor Saludares who informed
him that Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed firearm.
● On the night of the incident, Gapasin and Saludares positioned themselves inside the latter’s
yard. When Gapasin saw Calpito, he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When Calpito
was about 3m away from him, Gapasin asked him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of
answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired twice at
appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the ground simultaneously firing his
armalite.
● 15 minutes later, the police arrived and took Calpito’s body to the morgue. Gapasin was brought
to the P.C. Headquarters in Roxas where he was investigated.

RTC RULING:
The crime committed was murder attended by the aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the
accused having stepped and kicked the body of the deceased; (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3)
taking advantage of public position, with respect to the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC
soldier.
- Gapasin contends that only homicide was committed.

ISSUE:
1. Is the crime committed homicide?

PETITIONER (PEOPLE) RESPONDENT (C1C LORETO GAPASIN, PC


NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO,
alias “Olit”, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK
SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK
SALUDARES)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

SC RULING (J. Quiason):


No, murder was indeed committed. Treachery attended the commission of the crime. The two
conditions to constitute treachery were present in the case at bench, to wit: (a) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person who is attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

This can be gleaned from his act of waiting for the victim behind the hollow-block fence of Nicanor
Saludares and shooting the victim from his right side. Appellant’s resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment was shown.

The information alleged three other generic aggravating circumstances: ignominy, abuse of superior
strength and taking advantage of public position. The trial court correctly ruled out ignominy on the
strength of the autopsy conducted by the doctor who failed to find any other injuries such as bruises
and contusions which may indicate that the victim was kicked by his assailants.

The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as an aggravating
circumstance. Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an
armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant’s favor but this is offset by the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position. Therefore, only the generic aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against appellant.

You might also like