Case Digest (G.R. No. 108494)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 108494)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Samuel Marra y Zarate, G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., wrote for the Court.The criminal information was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan City charging Samuel Marra y Zarate and others with the murder of Nelson Tandoc on March 7, 1992; an amended information subsequently named Allan Tan (alias Allan Yao) but the warrant against Tan was returned unserved and trial proceeded against accused-appellant Samuel Marra alone. Marra pleaded not guilty at arraignment on May 15, 1992. On October 8, 1992 the trial court convicted him of murder with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered civil indemnities and damages.
At trial the prosecution’s key eyewitness, Jimmy Din, related that at about 2:00 A.M. on March 7, 1992 he and Tandoc had a confrontation with a man who made an obscene gesture; a scuffle followed with other men, the parties separated, and Din and Tandoc retreated into an annex of the Lucky Hotel. After about ten to fifteen minutes Tandoc opened a sliding door and Din saw a man in a security guard’s uniform — later identified as Marra — shoot Tandoc at close range; a 20‑watt fluorescent light illuminated the area. Tandoc was taken to Villaflor Hospital and died an hour later.
Police investigators, led by Sgt. Reynaldo de Vera, were directed to a man eating at a nearby eatery who identified himself as Samuel Marra; the officers accompanied him to his residence where Marra turned over a .38 revolver with five live rounds and one spent shell; De Vera smelled gunpowder on the barrel. Initially Marra denied involvement but, when told someone had seen him shoot Tandoc, he purportedly admitted shooting the victim but claimed self‑defense (alleging Tandoc had a samurai sword). Din later made a positive identification of Marra at the police station. The police also discovered Marra had no firearm license. For the defense, Marra testified he had worked as a security guard, changed clothes at about 4:00 A.M., and had been eating at the eatery when police later found him; he denied prior acquaintance with Din and insisted his gun still had five live rounds.
The RTC convicted; Marra appealed to the Supreme Court which reviewed the trial court record and the testimony. The Supreme Court considered issues of eyewitness identification, the admissibility of Marra’s admission to police under custodial‑investigation rules, and whether nocturnity was an aggravating circumstance; it issued its decision on September 20, 1994.
Issues:
- Was Marra’s admission to Sgt. De Vera inadmissible because it was made during custodial investigation in violation of Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution?
- Was the eyewitness identification by Jimmy Din sufficiently credible to sustain conviction?
- Did the prosecution prove the aggravating circumstance of nighttime (nocturnity) to justify its appreciation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)