GR 132696; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132696 -97, February 12, 2001
People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Navarro
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ramon Navarro was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for Murder and Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the eyewitness account of Bob Regaspi, who testified that on the evening of August 28, 1987, he saw Navarro alight from a jeep, pull out Romeo Calizar, kick him, and shoot him three times with a .45 caliber pistol. Regaspi claimed he could identify Navarro due to illumination from vehicle lights. He did not immediately report the crime out of fear, relocating to Manila for three years, but informed the victim’s wife of the assailant’s identity. The defense presented witnesses to challenge Navarro’s alleged notoriety and to suggest alternative suspects, but Navarro himself did not testify.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the lone eyewitness, Bob Regaspi; (2) the presence of treachery to qualify the killing as murder; and (3) the proper penalty given the applicable laws on illegal possession of a firearm used in a homicide.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On credibility, the Court found Regaspi’s testimony clear, consistent, and credible. His initial fear and delay in reporting were reasonable given the circumstances and did not undermine his positive identification, which was made under sufficient illumination. The defense’s alibi and imputation of ill motive were weak and unsubstantiated. Treachery was correctly appreciated as the attack was sudden and deliberate, depriving the unarmed victim of any chance to defend himself.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied Republic Act No. 8294 retroactively, as it is favorable to the accused. This law mandates that if an unlicensed firearm is used in a homicide or murder, the crime is absorbed and the penalty for the homicide or murder is imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the separate conviction for illegal possession was set aside. The penalty for Murder under the Revised Penal Code at the time of the crime was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to reclusion perpetua as maximum. The award of civil indemnity was sustained.