Facts:

The case involves Ramon Navarro (accused-appellant) who was convicted of Murder with the Use of an Unlicensed Firearm by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan. The incident occurred on August 28, 1987, along the highway in Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimony of Bob Regaspi, who witnessed Navarro shoot Romeo Calizar three times after pulling him from a jeep. Regaspi, who was driving a tricycle at the time, claimed he identified Navarro due to the illumination from the vehicles around them. Despite his fear of Navarro, who was rumored to be a killer, Regaspi later informed Calizar's wife, Demetria, about the identity of the assailant. The prosecution also presented other witnesses, including Demetria Calizar, who testified about the victim's background and the financial impact of his death on their family. The defense, on the other hand, presented several witnesses to challenge the credibilit...

Facts:

Incident Details:

• On August 28, 1987, at around 9:00 PM, along the highway in Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan, Ramon Navarro (accused-appellant) allegedly shot and killed Romeo Calizar using an unlicensed .45 caliber handgun.
• The prosecution's primary witness, Bob Regaspi, testified that he was driving a tricycle behind an owner-type jeep when he saw accused-appellant alight from the jeep, pull out Calizar, kick him, and shoot him three times.
• The incident occurred at night, but Regaspi claimed there was sufficient illumination from the jeep's lights and other passing vehicles.

Prosecution's Evidence:

• Bob Regaspi: Eyewitness who identified accused-appellant as the shooter. He testified that he saw the shooting clearly despite the nighttime setting.
• Demetria Calizar: Wife of the victim, who confirmed that Regaspi told her accused-appellant was the killer.
• Dr. Maria Victoria Orfinada: Municipal Health Officer who identified the death certificate, stating the cause of death as "severe hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds."
• PO3 Delfin Estabilla Flores: Responding officer who found two empty shells and two slugs of a .45 caliber gun near the victim's body.
• SPO3 Romeo De Guzman: Testified that accused-appellant was not licensed to possess a firearm.

Defense's Evidence:

• Mayor Leon Rivera: Testified that he was unaware of any criminal cases against accused-appellant during his tenure as mayor.
• Rodolfo Aquino: Retired provincial prosecutor who stated that he never encountered any criminal charges against accused-appellant prior to this case.
• PO3 Marciano Bacani: Presented the police blotter entry for August 30, 1987, which recorded the discovery of Calizar's body but did not mention accused-appellant.
• Rogelio Banogon: Claimed that he saw Regaspi holding a .45 caliber gun and heard Regaspi admit to shooting Calizar.
• Leonora Arboleda: Testified that the victim's wife, Demetria, had threatened to kill Calizar during a prior argument.
• Danilo Malapit: Stated that Calizar worked in his father's junk shop and left the shop on the night of the incident.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Credibility of Witnesses:

   • The Court found Bob Regaspi's testimony to be credible, straightforward, and consistent with the evidence. Minor inconsistencies in his testimony were deemed inconsequential and did not detract from his overall credibility.
   • The delay in reporting the crime was justified by Regaspi's fear of accused-appellant, who was allegedly the leader of the notorious "Aguila Gang."

2. Judicial Notice of Accused-Appellant's Notoriety:

   • The trial court's judicial notice of accused-appellant's notoriety was not the basis for his conviction. The conviction was based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, particularly Regaspi's eyewitness testimony.

3. Conspiracy Theory:

   • The defense's theory that Regaspi conspired with Demetria Calizar to kill Romeo Calizar was rejected. The trial court found the defense witnesses' testimonies to be unreliable and inconsistent.

4. Aggravating Circumstances:

   • The Court upheld the trial court's finding of treachery, as the victim was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself when he was suddenly shot by accused-appellant.
   • The use of an unlicensed firearm was properly considered as an aggravating circumstance under Republic Act No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866.

5. Penalty:

   • The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as the crime was committed prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659, which imposed the death penalty for heinous crimes.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's decision and affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of damages to the victim's heirs were upheld.