G.R. No. 104067 January 17, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Narciso G. Fuertes, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Narciso G. Fuertes, along with three unidentified individuals at large, was charged with the murder of Pablo B. Babula on August 9, 1990, in Pasay City. Only appellant stood trial, pleading not guilty. The prosecution evidence established that on the said date, witness Manuel Lagrosa was at the corner of Singco de Junio Street when appellant approached him. The victim, Babula, later joined them and they conversed as they walked towards Libertad Street. Near a store, appellant stayed behind the victim. Witnesses Lagrosa and Francisco Macalalad then heard a gunshot. Lagrosa, about 20-25 meters away, saw Babula fall. Macalalad, about three meters away, saw Babula prostrate on the ground with appellant and an unidentified person standing near him, both with drawn guns pointed at the victim. Appellant then stepped closer to Babula, pointed his gun at him, tucked the gun in his waist, and fled with the other person. An autopsy confirmed the victim died from a gunshot wound to the head. Prosecution witness Calixto Brazil testified that appellant knew the victim, as Babula was the president of the labor union at their former workplace and had recommended appellant’s dismissal. Appellant denied involvement, presenting an alibi that he was at a birthday celebration for his mother on August 8 and went to work in Dasmariñas, Cavite on the morning of August 9. He also admitted hiding for two months when NBI agents came looking for him, surrendering later on November 7, 1990. The trial court convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Narciso G. Fuertes for the crime charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s guilt but modified the crime from murder to homicide. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses, Lagrosa and Macalalad, were credible. Their testimonies were consistent and they positively identified appellant as the assailant. The Court rejected appellant’s challenges to the witnesses’ credibility, including Lagrosa’s claimed eye defect and his failure to know his landlady’s first name, finding these inconsequential. The Court also upheld the trial court’s factual findings despite two different judges hearing the prosecution and defense witnesses, as the deciding judge had the full record for review. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish how the attack commenced, and the lone gunshot wound at the back of the head, without more, did not conclusively prove that the means of execution were deliberately chosen to ensure the attack without risk to the assailant. Thus, the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and affirmed the award of damages.