G.R. No. 214506 October 19, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Oscar Parba y Solon, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Oscar Parba y Solon was charged with Murder for the killing of Mark P. Navaja on January 6, 1997, in Cebu City. The Information alleged that Parba, with treachery and evident premeditation, shot Navaja on the head, causing his death. During trial, prosecution witnesses, including security guards Jesus Catapan, Nestor Buenavista, and Fernando Cuizon, testified that at around 6:55 a.m., they saw Parba suddenly stand up, pull a gun, and shoot Navaja at the back of the head while the victim was helping his daughter off a motorcycle. The security guards chased Parba, who pointed his gun at them before escaping. A paraffin test on Parba’s hands was positive for gunpowder residue. Parba denied the charges, interposing alibi, denial, and set-up as defenses. He claimed he was at home sleeping and was later invited by a police officer to test a gun, after which he was arrested. He stated he knew Navaja as a childhood friend and neighbor but held no grudge against him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Parba of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Parba’s conviction for Murder.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that all elements of Murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him; (c) the killing was attended by treachery; and (d) the killing was not Parricide or Infanticide. Treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, with Parba shooting the unarmed victim from behind while he was assisting his daughter, rendering him defenseless. Parba’s alibi was rejected as inherently weak and unsubstantiated; he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, which was only 100 meters from his house. His alibi could not prevail over the positive, categorical, and consistent identification by the prosecution witnesses, who had no ill motive to testify falsely. The awards of damages were modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.