G.R. No. 132696 - People vs. Navarro

The case involves People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Navarro, where the latter is charged and eventually convicted for Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm.
Two separate Informations were filed: one for Murder (Criminal Case No. 3082-A) and another for Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions (Criminal Case No. 3083-A).
The incident occurred on the evening of August 28, 1987, along a highway in Barangay Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan.
The accused allegedly shot Romeo Calizar, resulting in his death. The information states that the killing was committed with treachery, evident premeditation, and taking advantage of nighttime and superior strength.

He was driving a tricycle in the vicinity when he observed a jeep which halted near the Bugtong Bridge.
From the jeep, accused-appellant, Ramon Navarro, disembarked carrying a .45 caliber handgun.
Navarro pulled a person from the jeep, kicked him, and then shot him three times, with the victim later identified as Romeo Calizar.

The approximate time of the incident (9:00 in the evening) and the circumstances of the shooting.
His ability to identify Navarro despite the low-light conditions, attributing this to the illumination from the jeep’s light, his own tricycle’ s light, and passing vehicles.

Two empty shells and two slugs from a .45 caliber firearm were recovered at the crime scene.
A death certificate, identified by Dr. Maria Victoria Orfinada, confirmed that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Demetria Calizar, the victim’s wife, who testified about her discovery of the crime news, her financial expenditures for the wake, and confirming Regaspi’s identification of Navarro as the killer.
PO3 Delfin Estabillo Flores, who testified regarding the police response and the evidence gathered at the scene.
SPO3 Romeo De Guzman of the Firearms and Explosives Office, who testified that records indicated Navarro was not licensed to carry a firearm.
Dr. Maria Victoria Orfinada, who authenticated the death certificate stating the cause of death.

Mayor Leon Rivera, who acknowledged Navarro’s notoriety and implicated him as the reputed leader of the “Aguila Gang.”
Rodolfo R. Aquino, a retired prosecutor, who noted that no criminal case was previously filed against Navarro before the present case.
PO3 Marciano Bacani, who indicated Navarro’s name did not appear in the police blotter for that period.
Rogelio Banogon and Leonora Arboleda, who attempted to support the claim that a conspiracy involving Bob Regaspi and Demetria Calizar might have existed to frame Navarro.
Danilo Malapit, who provided information on the victim's routine and his movements on the day of the incident.

Accused-appellant opted not to testify in his own defense.
The defense argued that inconsistencies in Regaspi’s testimony and certain delays in reporting the crime evince flaws in the prosecution’s evidence.
Additionally, the defense suggested that the trial court improperly took judicial notice of Navarro’s notorious reputation and the alleged background of the “Aguila Gang,” contending that these extraneous facts bolstered the conviction without proper legal basis.

Based on the weight of the testimony—particularly that of Bob Regaspi—and the physical evidence, the trial court convicted Navarro of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnification of P100,000.00 to the victim’s heirs.
The court gave judicial cognizance of Navarro’s background as a reputed gang leader; however, it clarified that his conviction rested on the convergence of the prosecution’s evidence.
The accused-appellant filed three assignments of error on appeal:

First, for relying on testimony that contained minor inconsistencies.
Second, for the trial court’s judicial notice of unproved, extraneous and doubtful facts regarding his notoriety.
Third, for failing to consider defense witnesses who purported a conspiracy implicating Regaspi and the victim’s widow.

The appellate court found that these errors were either misconceived or insufficient to undermine the trial court’s findings and therefore affirmed the conviction.

Whether the minor inconsistencies in Bob Regaspi’s testimony were sufficient to undermine his credibility and warrant reversal of the conviction.
Whether the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of Navarro’s notorious reputation and extraneous background information which was not directly connected to the evidence for the crime committed.
Whether the defense’s evidence and allegations of a conspiracy between Regaspi and Demetria Calizar were given proper consideration or should have influenced the trial court’s findings regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness.
Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance was properly applied to enhance the penalty for the crime of murder, and whether the physical and circumstantial evidence conclusively established that Navarro had committed the crime.