Title
People vs. Fuertes
Case
G.R. No. 104067
Decision Date
Jan 17, 1994
Narciso Fuertes stood trial for the 1990 murder of Pablo Babula in Pasay City, claiming alibi. Witnesses placed Fuertes at the scene; treachery not alleged downgrade crime to homicide. Supreme Court upheld damages, reduced penalty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104067)

Judgment and Penalty

The trial court rendered its judgment on August 21, 1991, finding Fuertes guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, along with an indemnification order to pay the victim's heirs a total of P250,000.00 in damages.

Evidence and Witness Accounts

The prosecution's case included witness testimony from Manuel Lagrosa and Francisco Macalalad. Lagrosa, while conversing with the victim, identified Fuertes as the individual who shot Babula in the head, corroborated by the autopsy report indicating a fatal gunshot wound. Macalalad, positioned nearby, also saw Fuertes and an unidentified accomplice with weapons directed at the victim.

Defense and Alibi

Fuertes denied involvement and claimed an alibi, explaining he was engaged in a family celebration on the night before the shooting. Testimony from his friend Tess Ishmael supported his alibi, indicating they traveled to work together on the morning of the incident.

Surrender and Subsequent Actions

Fuertes initially evaded arrest but later turned himself in following discussions with an NBI agent, mentioning concerns for his safety. Throughout this period, he maintained his innocence.

Appellate Review

In reviewing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court emphasized the credibility of eyewitness accounts. The fact-finding role of trial judges is typically upheld unless compelling reasons exist to deviate from such findings, which were not found in this case despite procedural nuances.

Contesting Witness Credibility

Fuertes challenged the credibility of Lagrosa and Macalalad based on minor inconsistencies in their testimonies and their lack of immediate action following the shooting. However, the appellate court found their testimonies credible, consistent with human experience during traumatic events, and indicative of sincerity.

Circumstantial Evidence and Guilt

The appellate court recognized that while no witness directly observed the shooting, circumstantial evidence sufficed to establish Fuertes’ guilt. His actions immediately before and after the shooting corroborated the identification of his involvement in the crime.

Legal Standards on Charges

The information filed against Fuertes was deemed

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.