G.R. No. 129566 October 7, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Noel Navarro, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 5, 1991, Ferdinand Rabadon was shot to death near Enoc Theater in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Jose Rabago, who was with Rabadon, witnessed the shooting. Rabago initially did not reveal the identities of the assailants to the police out of fear, claiming some local policemen were members of the Aguila Gang led by appellant’s brother. Three years later, on January 5, 1994, appellant Noel Navarro was arrested without a warrant by an NBI team. On January 6, 1994, two Informations were filed against him: one for Murder and another for violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm). During the trial, prosecution witness Jose Rabago testified that he saw Ming Basila shoot Rabadon twice at the back, and then appellant Noel Navarro shoot the victim three more times while he was already down. Rabago later recanted his testimony when presented by the defense. The trial court convicted appellant of Murder, qualified by treachery, and considered the illegal possession of firearm as an aggravating circumstance. The court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

The main issues involve the credibility of the lone eyewitness testimony and its subsequent retraction, the admissibility of evidence under the rule on res gestae, the waiver of rights against illegal arrest, the qualification of the killing to murder, and the proper treatment of the charge for illegal possession of firearm.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court reiterated that: (1) a retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier credible testimony; the original testimony of Jose Rabago was positive and clear, and his retraction was viewed with disfavor. (2) The testimony of a single witness, if positive and clear, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. (3) The rule on res gestae relates to the admissibility of evidence, not to its weight and sufficiency. (4) Alleged violations of rights against illegal arrest and seizure are deemed waived by the appellant’s failure to assert them prior to arraignment. (5) The killing was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and from behind, leaving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, thus constituting murder. (6) However, where the existence of the unlicensed firearm used in the killing has not been clearly established (as it was not recovered or presented in court), the charge of illegal possession of firearm cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance in the murder charge. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of indemnity and damages were sustained.