G.R. No. 108494 . September 20, 1994.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SAMUEL MARRA y ZARATE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Samuel Marra, a security guard, was charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Nelson Tandoc. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Jimmy Din, testified that after a prior altercation, he and Tandoc sought refuge inside the annex of Lucky Hotel. Upon exiting later, Marra, who was wearing a security guard’s uniform, suddenly shot Tandoc in the chest. Din positively identified Marra as the triggerman under the illumination of a fluorescent light. Police investigation led them to Marra, who was found eating at an eatery he was assigned to guard. He initially denied involvement but later claimed self-defense, stating the victim had a samurai sword, which was never recovered. A .38 caliber revolver with a spent shell, smelling of gunpowder, was retrieved from his residence.
The defense presented a different version, alleging that Tandoc and Din were the aggressors who attacked Marra and his companions with a samurai sword and a lead pipe. Marra claimed he fired a single shot in self-defense as Tandoc was about to strike him. The trial court convicted Marra of murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by nighttime, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but disallowed the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Jimmy Din credible, positive, and consistent. His identification of Marra was reliable, as the crime scene was illuminated, and he had a clear view of the assailant. The Court rejected the defense of self-defense, as it was not established with clear and convincing evidence. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. Marra’s claim of an imminent attack with a sword was belied by the prosecution evidence and the failure to present the alleged weapon.
The legal logic hinges on the assessment of evidence. Treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated because the attack was sudden and deliberate, employing means that ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant arising from any defense the victim might make. The victim was shot without any warning or opportunity to defend himself. However, the Court ruled that nighttime was not aggravating, as the prosecution failed to prove it was deliberately sought to facilitate the crime. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, as the death penalty was prohibited at the time of the offense. The civil indemnity and damages awarded by the trial court were likewise sustained.