G.R. No. 121087. August 26, 1999.
FELIPE NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On February 4, 1990, radio reporters Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique “Ike” Lingan went to Entertainment City in Lucena City. Jalbuena took a picture of a strip act, prompting the floor manager, Dante Liquin, and a security guard, Alex Sioco, to confront him. A confrontation ensued, and Jalbuena and his companions fled to the Lucena police station to report the incident. At the station, petitioner Felipe Navarro, a policeman, was drinking with colleagues. When Liquin and Sioco arrived, Navarro spoke with them privately. Navarro then confronted Jalbuena, pushing him against a wall, pulling out his firearm, cocking it, and pressing it against Jalbuena’s face. Lingan intervened to mediate, stating they were there to blotter the incident. This led to a heated exchange between Navarro and Lingan. Lingan challenged Navarro to a fistfight, saying, “Alisin mo yang baril mo at magsuntukan na lang tayo.” As Lingan turned away, Navarro hit him above the left eyebrow with the handle of his pistol, causing Lingan to fall. When Lingan tried to get up, Navarro delivered a fist blow to his forehead, flooring him again. Navarro then compelled Jalbuena to sign the blotter under threat. Lingan was taken to the hospital where he died from cerebral concussion and shock. Jalbuena had secretly recorded the altercation. Petitioner claimed that Lingan, who was drunk, tried to hit him twice, missed, and fell on the concrete floor twice, causing his own injuries. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution’s evidence, including the tape recording and Jalbuena’s testimony, credible and sufficient to convict Navarro of homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment finding petitioner Felipe Navarro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification to the penalty. The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. It found no reason to deviate from these findings, as the prosecution evidence, particularly the credible testimony of eyewitness Stanley Jalbuena and the corroborating tape recording, sufficiently established petitioner’s guilt. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of self-defense, as it was not credible and unsupported by evidence. The number, nature, and location of Lingan’s injuries, as per the postmortem report, contradicted petitioner’s claim that Lingan merely fell. The Court ruled that the killing was homicide, not murder, as the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not sufficiently alleged in the information. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 18 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity was affirmed.