Title
People vs. Marra y Zarate
Case
G.R. No. 108494
Decision Date
Sep 20, 1994
Nelson Tandoc was fatally shot in 1992; Samuel Marra was convicted based on eyewitness testimony, his admission, and evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction, rejecting self-defense claims and nighttime aggravation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 108494)

Petitioner and Respondent

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the homicide; Samuel Marra y Zarate is the accused-appellant whose conviction and sentence by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Dagupan City, were appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Dates and Procedural History

The shooting occurred March 7, 1992. An information originally named John Doe; an amended information (June 4, 1992) substituted Allan Tan for John Doe. A warrant against Allan Tan was returned unserved and trial proceeded solely against Marra. Arraignment occurred May 15, 1992; the trial court rendered judgment October 8, 1992, convicting Marra of murder with nocturnity and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua plus civil damages; the Supreme Court decision affirming that conviction was rendered in 1994.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Constitution governed procedural safeguards. Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution (right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation) was directly considered. The rules of evidence (admissibility of declarations of accused) under Rule 130 (Sec. 29, now Sec. 33) and pertinent jurisprudence on custodial interrogation and spontaneous admissions were applied.

Summary of Facts as Found by Trial Court

Eye-witness Jimmy Din testified that at about 2:00 A.M. he and Tandoc were outside Lucky Hotel when an altercation ensued with several men. After a chase and refuge in the hotel annex, when they later opened the sliding door Tandoc was shot by a man whom Din positively identified as Marra, then wearing a security guard’s polo shirt. Din was at close proximity (about four to five meters from the assailant) under illumination from an outside fluorescent bulb. Tandoc later died at Villaflor Hospital.

Police Investigation, Seizure of Firearm, and Identification

Police responded to the scene and, on investigation, were directed to Marra by a nearby security guard. At Marra’s residence, officers found a .38 caliber revolver with five live rounds and one spent shell; the barrel smelled of gunpowder. Marra initially denied shooting but, when told someone had seen him, admitted he shot Tandoc allegedly in self-defense and acknowledged chasing Din and Tandoc earlier. Din later positively identified Marra at the police station.

Forensic and Medical Evidence

Dr. Tomas G. Cornel performed the autopsy and found a gunshot wound with entry at the left anterior chest and exit at the lower left portion of the right shoulder, consistent with a ballistic fatal wound. The prosecution also presented itemized funeral and medical expenses incurred by the victim’s family.

Appellant’s Version and Trial Defense

Marra testified he was a security guard on duty the preceding night, left to change clothes around dawn, ate at “Linda’s Ihaw-Ihaw,” and was later accosted by police who escorted him to his residence to retrieve his weapon. He claimed when he surrendered the revolver it contained five live bullets and denied prior acquaintance with Din. He asserted self-defense during his initial statements to police but denied participation in open court.

Issue on Appeal: Sufficiency and Credibility of Identification

The defense argued Din could not have reliably identified the assailant—alleging obstructed view, unfamiliarity with Marra, and distance of 45 meters. The Court reviewed circumstances of observation: prior physical encounter with the assailants, effective lighting from a fluorescent bulb, the partially functioning spring hinge of the door which allowed a view, and Din’s proximity (4–5 meters) to the shooter. On that basis the Court found Din’s identification credible and reliable.

Issue on Appeal: Admissibility of Marra’s Admission and Custodial Safeguards

The Court addressed whether Marra’s admission to Sgt. De Vera was made during custodial investigation such that Article III, Section 12(1) warnings were required. The Court applied the test for custodial interrogation—whether the person was in custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in a way that would trigger the right to counsel and warning—and concluded Marra was not undergoing custodial interrogation when he made the admission. The investigation was still a general inquiry into possible suspects; Marra was not yet considered a particular suspect under formal custodial interrogation. Consequently, his spontaneous admission was admissible.

Legal Effect of Admission and Res Gestae Considerations

The Court relied on settled law that an accused’s declarations admitting guilt are admissible and may, under certain circumstances, form part of the res gestae; testimony of the officer who heard the admission is competent to state its substance. Marra’s admission to police that he shot Tandoc—though later qualified as self-defense—contradicted his in-court denial and materially undermined his defense. The admission thus carried significant weight independent of other evidence.

Aggrava

...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.

About Privacy Terms