7/21/2019 Rosales v CA

1/1

54

Rosales v. CA

G.R. Nos. 106229-30

March 15, 1996

Art. III, 22 Ex ost !acto "a#s a$% &'lls o( Atta'$%er

!AC)*+Leovigildo Rosales was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Northern Samar with

murder and illegal possession of firearms, which by agreement of the parties were jointly tried as

they arose from the same incident. rosecution witness !rancisco "uensalida narrated that he andNilo "ulan were together in the morning of #$ September %&'# on their way to get some bamboo

poles. "ulan however proceeded to the side of the fishpond used by residents for defecating to

answer the call of nature. (t was at this moment when Rosales approached "ulan from behind

and at a distance of $ meters fired at him with a shotgun. )fter he fell to the ground Rosales shothim again. *n the other hand, Leovigildo Rosales invo+ed selfdefense. -is version was that at

about ten ocloc+ in the morning of #$ September %&'# he went to inspect the fishpond owned

by a certain "ernardo "ulan but placed under his care as overseer. There, according to Rosales,

he caught Nilo fishing. -e fired his shotgun into the air to scare Nilo after the latter resolutelyrefused to leave. Nilo then struggled for the possession of the shotgun which fired and hit him.

The (nformation for illegal possession of firearm alleged that Rosales had under hiscustody and control an unlicensed %#gauge /inchester shotgun bearing Serial No. %$#'%%&. -e

claimed that the shotgun was given to him by the owner of the fishpond with authority to possess

coming from 0ateo *lindo, its alleged owner.*n 1une %2, %&'3, the trial court rendered judgment finding accused Rosales guilty of

homicide and illegal possession of firearms. )lthough treachery and evident premeditation were

alleged in the (nformation they were not held by the trial court to have 4ualified the +illing to

murder.

I**E+/hether .5. %'$$ prescribing the higher penalty can be retroactively applied in this case

R"ING+

No.

.5. No. %'$$ prescribing the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its ma6imum period

to reclusion perpetua approved on #& 1une %&'2 cannot be retroactively applied in this case

which transpired on #$ September %&'# inasmuch as this law is unfavorable to the accused.

repared by7 0ary Louise 0. Ramos %