G.R. No. 77087 - People vs. Narit y Fallar

The accused, Emilio Narit y Fallar (also known as Nelio or Dodong), was charged with the murder of Timoteo Morales.
The incident occurred on or about April 10, 1986 in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 3.
The charge was based on an information alleging that the accused, with treachery, evident premeditation, and intent to kill, attacked and beat the victim with a wooden club, causing multiple severe injuries that directly resulted in the victim’s death.
The pertinent injuries sustained by Timoteo Morales included various lacerated wounds, hematomas, punctured wounds, fractures (including linear and comminuted types), intracranial hemorrhage, and other cranial traumas documented in the autopsy report.

Upon arraignment on September 16, 1986, the accused pleaded guilty; he expressed that, besides his lack of familial support, he hoped that a plea of guilt might result in a lighter penalty even though he was charged with a capital offense.
Initially assisted by Atty. Adriano P. Demalerio of CLAO (Citizens Legal Assistance Office) of Tagbilaran City, the accused’s counsel later withdrew. The trial court then appointed Atty. J. Albert Tinampay as counsel de oficio.
The prosecution presented its case with five witnesses and several documentary exhibits, including:

Exhibit “A”: The autopsy report by Dr. Marcial Escobia, Jr. detailing the injuries on the victim’s body.
Exhibit “B”: The certificate of death, also issued by Dr. Escobia, Jr., which stated the cause of death as “cardio respiratory arrest, antecedent cause intracranial hemorrhage.”
Exhibit “C”: A piece of wooden coco lumber with a handle, identified as the weapon used in the assault.
Exhibits “D”, “D-1”, “D-2”: Decisions from previous cases involving the accused on charges of frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries.
Exhibit “E” and “E-1”: The court’s decision in another case for slight physical injuries.

Dr. Marcial Escobia, Jr. testified regarding the autopsy findings on Timoteo Morales, providing detailed descriptions of the injuries.
Heracleo Salisid, a driver and eyewitness, recounted witnessing an old man being beaten with a wooden club by a man later identified as Emilio Narit; he also described distinctive physical marks (e.g., a scar on the nose) linked to the accused.
A P/Lot. Jesus Niluag, a member of the Tagbilaran Police Force, testified regarding his search of the crime scene where the weapon and other physical evidence (such as blood clots and a bicycle, allegedly owned by the victim) were recovered.
Lopesina Pague, the sister of the accused, related a conversation held on March 6, 1986, in which the accused allegedly expressed hatred against the victim due to a personal grievance involving hospital expenses and prior altercations.
Eusebia Morales, the victim’s widow, provided background on her deceased husband and confirmed the circumstances of his death.

The trial court found Emilio Narit y Fallar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
In rendering its decision, the court considered two main qualifying circumstances for murder: treachery and evident premeditation.

Treachery was attributed to the sudden and unexpected nature of the attack on a defenseless elderly victim in broad daylight, which minimized any risk of retaliation.
Evident premeditation was deduced from the fact that the accused had allegedly expressed ill-feeling towards the victim as early as March 6, 1986 and from the use of the club, with the inference that its design fitted his hand.

The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was also noted, while the accused’s guilty plea was seen as mitigating; however, the mitigating effect was considered offset by the aggravating elements.
The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of death and ordered him to indemnify the victim’s heirs in the amount of ₱12,000.00 (without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency).

In subsequent proceedings, the accused-appellant moved for relief from filing a brief, arguing that no error was committed by the trial court since he pleaded guilty voluntarily and did not present evidence.
A change in counsel occurred with Atty. Alfredo M. Duran being appointed as counsel de oficio for the appeal.
Later developments included:

The commutation of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua in line with the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition on the death penalty.
The appellant’s eventual filing of his brief on November 28, 1990, in which he raised two main issues regarding the absence of evidence for evident premeditation and treachery.

The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a brief affirming that the crime should be regarded not as murder but as homicide, contending that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the qualifying circumstances required for murder.

Whether the trial court erred in its finding of evident premeditation in the commission of the crime, considering the mere lapse of time and the isolated expression of ill-feeling were insufficient to establish a premeditated intent.

The accused contended that there was an undue presumption of deliberate planning based solely on his earlier remarks and the weapon used.
The required external acts that would unmistakably indicate a resolution to commit murder were argued to be absent.

Whether the trial court properly determined that the crime was committed with treachery, given that the evidence did not show particulars as to how the assault was initiated and executed.

The accused argued that the suddenness of the attack and the public setting did not amount to treachery as defined under the law.
The issue also encompassed whether the circumstances of an open, daylight encounter on a public road precluded a finding of treacherous conduct.

Whether, in view of the errors alleged concerning the presence of qualifying circumstances (evident premeditation and treachery), the conviction for murder should instead be reduced to a conviction for homicide.