THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
128225
June 17, 2003
-versus-
DANTE NARRA Y ARIOLA,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
From the Consolidated/Joint
Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134 finding him guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. 92-4651 and 92-4652 for murder
and
homicide, respectively, appellant Dante Narra y Ariola comes to this
Court
on appeal.chanrobles virtual law library
In Criminal Case No.
92-4651, the Information[2]
charges appellant with murder defined and penalized under Article 248
(as
amended by R.A. 7659) of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as
follows:
"That on or
about the 8th day of July, 1992, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro
Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, while armed with .45 caliber pistol, conspiring and
confederating
with a companion whose true identity and present whereabouts is still
unknown
and both of them mutually helping and aiding with one another, with
intent
to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one
BEETHOVEN
GRAN y TAMPARONG on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting
upon him serious and mortal wounds, which directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
In Criminal Case No.
92-4652,
the Information[3]
charges appellant with homicide defined and penalized under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed as follows:
"That on or
about the 8th of July, 1992, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro
Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, while armed with a .45 calibert (sic) pistol, conspiring and
confederating
with a companion whose true identity and present whereabouts is still
unknown
and both of them mutually helping and aiding with one another, with
intent
to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack,
assault and shoot one MARY GRACE MANLANGIT y CINCO on the left ear
(head)
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds which directly caused
her death.chanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW."
When arraigned,
the accused, with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not
guilty
to both charges. The two cases were tried jointly.cralaw:red
From the evidence of
the prosecution consisting of the testimonies of Isidro Amangca, Lita
Manuel,
Dula Bautista, Brigida Viloria, Ernesto Manlangit, Allan Gran, Virginia
Gran, Dra. Patricia Dulay Tabangcura and Dr. Alberto Reyes, the
following
are established:
At about 9:40 a.m. of
July 8, 1992, while Isidro Amangca was selling bananas outside the
talipapa
at Buting, East Rembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati,[4]
an owner-type jeep driven by Beethoven Gran (Gran) stopped right in
front
of him.[5]
Moments later, appellant who was on board a motorcycle driven by an
unidentified
man suddenly pulled a .45 caliber firearm,[6]
aimed and fired a shot at Gran who was still seated at the driver’s
seat
of his jeep.[7]
The shot missed Gran who quickly jumped out of the jeep and landed on
the
sidewalk by the talipapa, only to be shot again by appellant[8]
who, at this juncture, was already in a standing position.[9]
Again, the shot missed Gran who ran towards and sought shelter in the
nearby
store of Ernesto Manlangit.[10]
Appellant followed suit[11]
and fired several shots, hitting Gran as well as Manlangit’s 4-year old
daughter Mary Grace who was inside the store.[12]
Upon seeing the seemingly lifeless body of Gran, appellant hurriedly
fled
together with his unidentified companion on board the motorcycle[13]
and headed towards the direction of Guadalupe.[14]
Gran died on the spot
while Mary Grace was brought to the Fort Bonifacio General Hospital in
Makati where she was pronounced dead on arrival.cralaw:red
In the afternoon also
of July 8, 1992, Amangca gave an eyewitness account[15]
of the incident before the Makati Police. He later gave a description
of
the face of "the gunman" - basis of the cartographic sketch prepared by
the NBI.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
On July 18, 1992, after
appellant was arrested, Amangca positively identified appellant from a
line-up of "suspects" as the gunman.[17]
From the autopsy report[18]
of Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation, it appears that Gran died of gunshot wounds on the face,
chest and buttocks, while Mary Grace died of a gunshot wound on the
head.cralaw:red
Appellant who interposed
the defense of alibi summarizes in his brief[19]
his version as follows:
"x
x x Accused Dante Narra testified that the deceased,
Beethoven Gran, was a close friend of his ‘buddy’ for several years
while
in the service of the Philippine Constabulary; that during his
lifetime,
Beethoven confided to him his problems - like the threats to his
(Beethoven)
life by unidentified callers as he was a member of the RAM, the killing
of a muslim by the name of Edwin Kahal for which the latter’s family
threatened
him (Beethoven), and the most serious threat came from a gunrunning
syndicate,
of which a certain ‘Dok’ was a member; that on the early morning of
July
8, 1992, he left his residence at Murphy, Quezon City, and went to the
house of Beethoven Gran on board his owner type jeep to get a spare
tire;
that in the house of Beethoven, he met Beethoven’s wife and he
introduced
himself; that when he was told that Beethoven was not around, he left
at
8:30 that morning and went home to Murphy, Quezon City, arriving
thereat
at 9:00 o’clock in the morning; that he went to a repair shop to have
the
electric fan of his jeep repaired; and that he left his jeep and
returned
in the afternoon and met some friends. (TSN, pp. 22-23, March 4, 1994)
Accused also declared
that
he came to know of the death of Beethoven Gran only on the afternoon of
July 9, 1992 through a newspaper and that he did not go to the wake of
Beethoven Gran because he was forewarned of the threats to his life. He
also claimed that from July 8 to the time he was detained at the Makati
Municipal Jail on July 18, 1992, he was reporting for duty (TSN, pp.
15-20,
May 13, 1994); that on July 18, 1992, he was ordered by his Officer to
report to the Makati Police Station; that he was made to participate in
a line up where the witnesses to the killing of Beethoven Gran were to
identify the gunman; that in said line up, the witnesses failed to
identify
the gunman; that Sgt. Baldado told the witnesses to point to a person
and
a second line up was formed; and that in the second line up, he was
pointed
to as the gunman. He alleged that after he was pointed to as the
gunman,
he was told to remove his uniform and he was locked up in jail.
x
x x"
Finding for the prosecution,
the trial court convicted appellant by Decision of August 29, 1996, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case
No.
92-4651, this Court finds accused DANTE NARRA guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA; he is also ordered to pay the heirs of Beethoven
Gran the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and the amount of P59,772.70, as actual damages,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs.
In Criminal Case
No.
92-4652, this Court finds accused Dante Narra guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide and he is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate
sentence of SIX (6) years and ONE (1) day, of Prision Mayor, as the
minimum
penalty to TWELVE (12) years and ONE (1) day of Reclusion Temporal, as
the maximum penalty; the accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Mary
Grace
Manlangit the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment
in case of insolvency, the amount of P49,355.00 as actual damages,
without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED."[20]
Hence, the present
appeal
anchored on the following assignment of errors: I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT, CONTRADICTORY,
IMPOSABLE
(sic) AND DOUBTFUL TESTIMONIES OF THE FIVE (5) PRINCIPAL PROSECUTION
WITNESSES
TO THE SERIOUS PREJUDICE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT
INSPITE
OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT HE WAS POSITIVELY
IDENTIFIED
BY ANY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
III
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS GUILT
WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
As in most criminal
cases, the issue is one of credibility.cralaw:red
Appellant, claiming
that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
draws attention to alleged inconsistent, conflicting and contradictory
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, he highlighting the following:
Amangca’s
testimony that after appellant first shot Gran who at the time was
behind
the wheels of his jeep, appellant immediately left the scene with his
companion
on board a motorcycle,[21]
whereas in his subsequent testimony, he declared that appellant shot
the
victim several times;[22]
Amangca’s testimony that appellant, after the first shot, immediately
alighted
from the motorcycle, whereas in his subsequent testimony, he declared
that
appellant was still on board the motorcycle when he fired the second
shot;[23]
Amangca’s different accounts regarding appellant’s footwear and length
of his pants; storeowner Manlangit’s testimony that he did not see the
face of the assailant on the first shot as he only heard the shot,[24]
whereas in his testimony on cross-examination, he declared that he saw
the face of the assailant as soon as the latter fired the first shot;[25]
and Manlangit’s testimony that he saw the entire shooting incident,[26]
whereas in his subsequent testimony he stated that he was not able to
see
the incident.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
And appellant questions
the credibility of Dula Bautista who testified only after eight (8)
months
from the occurrence of the incident; of Lita Manuel, who like Dula
Bautista,
was not listed as a witness for the prosecution and only volunteered to
give her statement several months after the incident, upon the prodding
of witness Manlangit; and of Brigida Viloria, a close friend of the
Manlangits,
whose testimony is suspicious and doubtful as she surfaced only after
one
year from the occurrence of the incident.cralaw:red
The appeal is bereft
of merit.cralaw:red
The "inconsistency"
belabored by appellant on at what stage of the incident he boarded the
motorcycle was correctly brushed aside by the trial court:
"FISCAL LALIN:
Q [to Isidro Amangca]:
When [appellant] alighted
from the motorcycle, where did the accused go?chanrobles virtual law library
[Defense counsel] ATTY.
VILLENA:
Your Honor, the witness
has been answering, on the previous questions that right after the
incident
he boarded the motorcycle.chanrobles virtual law library
COURT:
That was after he fired
all these shots that’s why he sped away."[28]
(Emphasis supplied.)
With respect to Amangca’s
questioned testimony on when appellant alighted from the motorcycle and
his recollection of appellant’s footwear and length of his pants, any
variation
thereon is too insignificant to erode his credibility. It bears noting
that right after the incident, Amangca picked up the empty bullet
shells
from the scene of the crime which he handed to the police, a reflection
of his presence of mind and keen attention both of which enhance his
capacity
for correct observation. And he, also after the incident, gave a vivid,
credible account of what transpired. What is important is that he
positively
identified appellant as the gunman soon after he was arrested.cralaw:red
Amangca’s credibility
as a witness having been unimpeached and the credibility of his
testimony
having been unsuccessfully impeached, discussion of the corroborative
testimony
of the other prosecution witnesses becomes unnecessary. Suffice it to
state
that any discrepancies in their testimonies are too trivial to affect
their
credibility and in fact render them more believable as they preclude
the
possibility of rehearsal.cralaw:red
For witnesses are not
expected to recall with accuracy or uniformity every single detail of
the
incident, given the frailty of human memory. As long as their
testimonies
dovetail on material points, the courts may not just disregard them.cralaw:red
It bears stressing that
the incident occurred in broad daylight, hence, conditions of
visibility
were favorable. The identification of appellant as the malefactor
should
thus be trusted.[29]chanrobles virtual law library
In light then of the
positive identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes,
his alibi is weightless, especially given his failure to show the
physical
impossibility of his presence at the crime scene.[30]
As correctly found by the trial court:
"x x
x
x x
x
x x x
In the cases at bar,
the accused did not adduce evidence to prove that it was impossible for
him to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.
The distance between the repair shop in Murphy, Quezon City, where
accused
claims he was at the time of the commission of the crime, and the scene
of the crime at the ‘Talipapa’ at East Rembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati,
can
be negotiated in less than one hour by motorcycle. The accused,
himself,
declared that on July 8, 1992, he returned to his residence at 9:00
o’clock.
Thereafter, he left and went to the repair shop to have the electric
fan
of his jeep repaired. He left his jeep at the shop and returned in the
afternoon (TSN, pp. 22-23, March 4, 1994). Thus, it is very possible
that
after leaving his jeep at the repair shop, the accused boarded a
motorcycle
and went to the ‘Talipapa’ at East Rembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati, and
upon
seeing Beethoven Gran, shot and killed him, in the manner as described
by the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, he left the scene of the
crime
and probably returned to the shop as the accused alleged. x
x x
"The accused and his
wife claimed that he reported for duty in the afternoon of July 8,
1992.
However, the official records of the unit to which the accused was
assigned
show that the accused had not reported for duty from July 5, 1992 up to
July 17, 1992 (Exh. "Z"). The evidence adduced to show that the accused
did not report for duty to his Battalion on the above-mentioned dates
was
at all controverted. x x x"
(Underscoring
supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
The guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of appellant notwithstanding, this Court finds that the killing
of
Gran was neither treacherous nor premeditated to qualify it to murder.
The circumstances which attended the killing rule out the presence of
treachery
and even evident premeditation.cralaw:red
"The essence of treachery
is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate
and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim
no change to resist or escape. x x
x The victim was undoubtedly caught unaware and had no chance of
putting
up any defense. xx xx"[31]
(Emphasis in the original).cralaw:red
That Gran was able to
elude the first and the second shots and was able to scamper for safety
as he headed towards the nearby store of Manlangit negates the notion
that
he was caught unaware and totally defenseless.cralaw:red
On to the civil aspect
of the case.chanrobles virtual law library
Jurisprudence instructs
that the award of actual damages must be duly substantiated by receipts.[32]
In Criminal Case No. 92-4651, the trial court awarded the amount of
P59,772.70
representing expenses incurred as a result of Gran’s death, while in
Criminal
Case No. 92-4652, it awarded the amount of P49,355.00 representing
expenses
incurred as a result of Mary Grace’s death.cralaw:red
An examination of the
documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution shows, however, that
of the total amount awarded to the heirs of Gran, only the amount
P15,707.75
is properly receipted,[33]
hence, the amount of P44,064.95 must be disallowed from the actual
damages
awarded. And of the amount awarded to the heirs of Mary Grace, only the
amount of P26,850,00 representing burial and funeral expenses[34]
is duly receipted, hence, the amount of P22,505.00, the details of
which
are inputed in a handwritten memorandum of alleged expenses during the
wake of Grace Manlangit,[35]
must be disallowed.cralaw:red
On top of his liability
for actual damages, appellant is likewise liable to pay to the heirs of
each victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity[36]
which needs no proof other than the victim’s death.[37]
As to the award by the
trial court of P100,000.00 to the heirs of each victim representing
moral
damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount must be
reduced
to P50,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the joint
decision on review is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified,
the
judgment reads:
1. In Criminal
Case No. 92-4651, appellant DANTE NARRA y ARIOLA is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide and he is hereby sentenced to
suffer
an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of prision
mayor
as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of reclusion
temporal
as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Beethoven Gran y
Tamparong
the amount of P15,707.75 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral
damages,
and P50,000.00 as death indemnity.chanrobles virtual law library
2. In Criminal
Case No. 92-4652, appellant DANTE NARRA y ARIOLA is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Homicide and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate
penalty of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as minimum,
to
Fourteen (14) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of reclusion
temporal
as maximum. He is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Mary Grace Manlangit the
amount of P26,850.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P50,000.00 as death indemnity.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records at 529-540.
[2]
Id. at 1-2.
[3]
Id. at 31-32.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
TSN, September 4, 1992 at 6-7.
[5]
Id. at 8-9, 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Information, Records at 1-2.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
TSN, testimony of Amangca, September 4, 1992 at 13.
[8]
Id. at 18, 22; TSN, testimony of Lita Manuel, October 21, 1992 at 15.
[9]
Id. at 14-16.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
TSN, testimony of Lita Manuel, October 21, 1992 at 16.
[11]
TSN, testimony of Amangca, September 4, 1992 at 22.
[12]
TSN, testimony of Lita Manuel, October 21, 1992 at 16.
[13]
TSN, testimony of Isidro Amangca, September 4, 1992 at 23.
[14]
TSN, testimony of Dula Bautista, March 24, 1993 at 24.
[15]
Exhibit "B", Records at 257.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Exhibit "C", id. at 258.
[17]
Exhibit "D", id. at 259.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Exhibits "U"- "U-4," id. at 315-316.
[19]
Rollo at 54-55.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Records at 539-540.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
TSN, September 4, 1992 at 17.
[22]
Id. at 20-23.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id. at 17-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
TSN, November 10, 1993 at 16-17.
[25]
Id. at 65.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
Id. at 45.
[27]
Id. at 45-46.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
TSN, September 4, 1992 at 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
People v. Martinez, 274 SCRA 259, 270 (1997) cited in People v. Ricardo
Napalit y Paral, G.R. Nos. 142919 and 143876, February 4, 2003.
[30]
People v. Peleras, 365 SCRA 220 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
People v. Dando, 325 SCRA 406 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Tomas Hugo v. Hon. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 126752, September 6, 2002.
[33]
Exhibits "L," "N" - "N-1," "N-3," "N-12," "N-13," N-14."
[34]
Exhibits "Q" & "U".chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
People v. Mirador, supra.
[36]
People v. Peleras, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
People v. Salvador and Salvador, G.R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002. |