G.R. No. 104067 - People vs. Fuertes

On August 9, 1990, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Pablo B. Babula was fatally shot in the head.
Accused-appellant Narciso G. Fuertes, allegedly in conspiracy with three unidentified persons (Peter Doe, John Doe, and Richard Doe), was indicted for the murder.
The victim’s autopsy confirmed a gunshot wound with the entrance located on the occipital region and the exit wound on the middle of the forehead.

On the day of the incident, private contractor Manuel Lagrosa was waiting for his two co-workers at the corner of Singco de Junio Street, when Fuertes approached him.
As Lagrosa and Fuertes conversed about fighting cocks, Pablo B. Babula emerged from his residence, tapped Fuertes on the hand, and enquired about his arrival.
The conversation, conducted in the Visayan dialect, proceeded as the pair walked toward Libertad Street where Babula’s car was parked.
Fuertes separated from the group near a store where an onlooker, Francisco Macalalad—a bootblack—was present.

Seconds later, a gunshot was heard by Lagrosa and Macalalad; both witnessed Babula falling to the ground.
Lagrosa, from a distance of 20 to 25 meters, and Macalalad, stationed about three meters away, observed Fuertes and an unidentified individual with drawn guns near the victim.
Fuertes was seen advancing towards Babula with his gun pointed at him before tucking the firearm and fleeing into an alley, followed by the unidentified person.
Post-incident actions included Lagrosa informing the victim’s family through his landlady, Mrs. Evangelista, and Macalalad seeking cover behind a fence.

Fuertes denied any involvement in the killing and asserted an alibi, claiming he had been on a drinking spree with family and friends the night before (August 8, 1990).
According to his testimony, he went to bed at around 2:00 A.M. and was awakened at approximately 8:00 A.M. on the day of the incident, after which he proceeded to work.
His co-worker and close friend Tess Ishmael corroborated that he had traveled with several office mates, adding context to his claimed whereabouts.
On September 7, 1990, Fuertes was present at his residence when NBI agents came looking for him, yet he did not identify himself, later going into hiding for two months.
His eventual surrender on November 7, 1990, came after his father contacted the authorities, citing Fuertes’ inability to continue hiding, although he never admitted guilt.

Testimonies detailed the sequence of events before, during, and after the shooting, including those of Lagrosa and Macalalad.
Lagrosa’s residence certificate and corroborative documents from the Office of the City Treasurer of Pasay City confirmed his statements about his location and interactions.
Discrepancies, such as differing accounts regarding Fuertes’ clothing and witness observations, were noted but deemed minor given the stress of the incident.
The defense disputed the credibility of eyewitness identification and pointed to Lagrosa’s eye defect, but the court found that the defect did not inhibit his ability to observe and identify Fuertes accurately.

At trial, Fuertes pleaded not guilty while the other accused remained unidentified and at large.
The trial court rendered judgment on August 21, 1991, convicting Fuertes and imposing reclusion perpetua plus indemnification for damages to the victim’s heirs.
On appeal, Fuertes argued that the testimonies were unreliable, particularly noting that the judge who rendered the decision did not hear all witness testimonies firsthand.

Whether the evidence presented, predominantly circumstantial and eyewitness testimonies, was sufficient to establish Fuertes’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Assessment of discrepancies in witness statements and their impact on the credibility of the identification of the accused.
Evaluation of the defense’s contention regarding the defendant’s alibi and potential bias in testimonies by relatives.

The proper application of the rule on appellate deference to the trial court’s factual findings, especially when two different judges heard the evidence at trial.

Whether the trial court’s and the appellate court’s reliance on the full record, despite the decision being penned by a judge who did not observe all witnesses firsthand, was justified.
Determining if the appellate court’s methodology in reviewing the trial findings was consistent with established principles.

The legal sufficiency and clarity of the charges, particularly concerning the presence or absence of qualifying circumstances such as treachery, as alleged in the indictment.

Whether the offense's aggravating circumstances were clearly pleaded and proven, or if they should be treated merely as aggravating circumstances in sentencing.
How the absence of direct eyewitness evidence to the act of shooting impacts the overall criminal charge.

The relevance of the accused’s voluntary surrender in mitigating his sentence.

Whether Fuertes’ surrender meets the criteria for a reduction in penalty, considering his motivations and prior behavior during the period he was at large.