Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28812)
Facts:
The case involves the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff-appellee against accused-appellant Jose Narsico, also known as Rogelio Limpio y Suico, who was accused of murdering Eliezer Rosario on July 20, 1988. The incident occurred at around 9:30 PM inside Jovel Pesquera's store in the public market of Balamban, Cebu, where Eliezer was watching a movie with his family and friends. Jose Narsico and his accomplice, Efren Suico, arrived at the store during the movie; while Efren remained by the door, Jose approached Eliezer and suddenly opened fire without provocation, resulting in Eliezer collapsing onto the table. Following the shooting, Eliezer was taken to Balamban Hospital but was later transported to Cebu City, where he succumbed to his injuries. Jose Narsico was subsequently arrested and tried, while Efren remained at large and his case was archived. During the trial, Jose Narsico contested the identification made by prosecution witnesses, claiming that they did no
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28812)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City rendered a decision on 18 October 1991 convicting Jose Narsico (Narciso) of murder.
- The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to pay P50,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim Eliezer Rosario, and to shoulder the costs of the proceeding.
- The case concerning the co-accused, Efren Suico, who remained at large, was placed in the archives.
- Circumstances Surrounding the Crime
- On 20 July 1988, at approximately 9:30 in the evening, Eliezer Rosario was in the store of Jovel Pesquera in the public market of Balamban, Cebu.
- Rosario was watching a betamax movie, seated at a table, his attention directed toward the television screen.
- Also present were Jovel Pesquera, his common-law wife Delia, their children, their helper Virgie, and the witness Rogelio Estan.
- The sequence of events during the incident:
- Jose Narsico (Narciso) and Efren Suico entered the premises; Suico stood near the door while Narsico advanced toward Rosario inside the store.
- Without any provocation, Narsico fired a volley of shots at Rosario, causing him to collapse on the table.
- Narsico then exited the scene immediately, followed by Suico.
- Subsequent actions:
- After the shooting, Jovel Pesquera went to inform Pat. Primitivo Rosario (brother of the victim).
- The victim was rushed to Balamban Hospital and later transferred to Cebu City, where he eventually succumbed to a fatal gunshot wound, as confirmed by the testimony of Dr. Jesus P. Cerna.
- Testimony confirmed that no defensive wounds were evident on the victim, indicating that he had little or no opportunity to protect himself.
- Prosecution Evidence and Witness Testimonies
- Identification and eyewitness testimonies were provided by:
- Jovel Pesquera, who immediately reported the incident and identified the accused.
- Rogelio Estan, who confirmed witnessing the events leading up to and following the shooting.
- Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, who testified regarding the cause of death from the gunshot wound.
- The prosecution relied on the timely evidence concerning the manner of the killing, the positioning of the victim, and the specific actions of the accused.
- Defense Evidence and Alleged Alibi
- The accused (Narsico) denied any involvement in the crime.
- He advanced an alibi defense claiming that on the night of 20 July 1988 he was employed as a helper at Marlyn Trading in Cebu City.
- Key points of the alibi:
- Narsico asserted that from February to August 1988 he was engaged in extended working hours at Marlyn Trading.
- He maintained that he spent the night at his employer’s house at Sunrise Village, Cebu City, sharing sleeping quarters with his coworker Rey Espisa.
- Corroborative attempts by the defense:
- Rey Espisa testified that both he and Narsico had finished work around 10:00 PM and had returned together to their employer’s residence, further affirming that they did not leave the premises thereafter.
- A certification from Marlyn Trading’s owner, Marlyn Canabe, was submitted to show that Narsico was in her employment at the time of the crime; however, this certification was objected to as hearsay since the owner was not called as a witness.
- Inconsistencies and Issues with the Defense Testimony
- The prosecution and the trial court questioned the credibility of the defense alibi:
- The only corroborative witness, Rey Espisa, was perceived as having rehearsed and inconsistent testimony.
- Espisa’s responses on cross-examination revealed several hesitations and a lack of detail, raising suspicions of perjury.
- The defense argument regarding delays in eyewitness affidavits:
- The accused argued that the prosecution witnesses (Pesquera and Estan) delayed executing their affidavits (one month and seven days after the incident), implying that this affected the reliability of their identification.
- However, the delay was explained by the natural hesitancy of witnesses to immediately come forward in criminal investigations, and the explanation was found acceptable by the trial court.
- The overall picture presented by the evidence showed that the positive identification by prosecution witnesses outweighed the uncorroborated self-serving alibi of the accused.
Issues:
- Whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, despite the delay in executing their affidavits, was sufficient to establish the accused’s identity as the assailant.
- Whether the accused’s alibi defense, asserting that he was at Marlyn Trading in Cebu City at the time of the crime, was properly supported by credible and corroborative evidence.
- Whether the delay in reporting and executing affidavits by prosecution witnesses impugns their credibility and affects the overall reliability of their identification of the accused.
- Whether the inconsistencies and perceived rehearsed nature of the testimony of the defense witness (Rey Espisa) undermine the alleged alibi defense.
- Whether the trial court properly weighed the evidence of motive—specifically, the alleged personal vendetta of the accused against the victim’s family—in sustaining the conviction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)